case the individual human being it's more than about legal doctrine it's about a person who was on american soil and parents within the american culture and who lived here virtually his whole case with profound consequences immigration judge then said it's a sad story but apparently is there any possibility of mediation in this case we tried to waste one little disagreement i think we have very strong legal arguments and i will address those when i return thank you may have placed court jonathan potter and be happy attorney general to address your question i think it's a question the entire panel we don't like the result either i just can't imagine this guy and off the plane in japan and the word japanese i'm probably speaking out of turn but at the movie argument my director that starts traveling around the office trying to find some way on your registration is an old concept and he just didn't fit there and that is the problem we have in this case is everyone does not fit into any category congress has given us so we were stuck with this quandary that we don't have the discretion in this case we have a lot of cases on removal and that isn't that's a sad fact in this case  seventy actually start one thousand strongly five with his as a juvenile he's been committing crimes and separated time and that's the sad fact in this case also he doesn't seem to be able to reform itself and because of that we've got the choice between keeping him tattoos i'm covered from head to toe with tattoos and they're not they're not japanese tattoos or hispanic tattoos and the immigration judge looked at that information and said you know despite the fact i find this to be a sad case i don't find that you're eligible for sidled because you're a career criminal and i don't find you all to fall for torture convention protection either so he was because there was no evidence that if mr everyone was returned to japan that he would be tortured that was the difficulty the immigration judge at and frankly served stance with this case is where do we what do we do with this individual that continues to make him a crime and really is a japanese what do you do with this individual  the second is that he's not a great candidate for the exercise of discretion in his favor because he could with so many very serious crime well rely on any others i suppose well if they did rather relied on those those that could have been challenged perhaps he may not have been represented by counsel we would have to look into those but i don't think those plate with the opportunity they had for mediation you could challenge  you that wasn't an issue of mediation merely don't you have that with committed all the other crimes i frankly don't know they're not an issue in the case i can say that there are there's nothing in the record about other crimes other government is forced to do what it's doing here is just not correct it may be true that it's not the court's business to order the government to exercise discretion but the got someone in the government need to chill it's sometimes when i was a district and the government would charge a question of equitable stoppel and i believe the government is absolutely incorrect that us versus penny lee and prevents this court from exercising or imposing equitable stop on these facts i couldn't get the that's not affirmative misconduct in the government has not argued that that's not affirmative misconduct what the officer did was say you have to have your husband here and he was wrong he was wrong and that shut the door why is that affirmative misconduct because bill maher at that time allowed the individual parent adoptive parents if she was a citizen to proceed with the citizenship of her son at that time but now if you had a record that showed that the officer knew the law maliciously falsified its statement to the woman of what the law was just because he wanted to make trouble for the affirmative that would be very difficult to gather that kind of evidence forty eight years later  forty some years later though i really have is evidence that the government official made a mistake and the state go severe consequences and i think that is affirmative misconduct it's fun to the government it's misconduct  violated the law why couldn't avoid any harm from that affirmative misconduct by getting himself naturalized once he found out like before that he was not a citizen because he had in violation of a statutory prescription in other words courts do not have the authority to override a statute we're not asking the court to do that we're asking the court to require the executive branch to comply with the statute this is just the opposite opinion and i don't think it requires resolving the conflict over what we mean by nationality i think this court can simply say mr ever present evidence that he is and should be treated as a citizen the government has not in any