jurisdiction over some issues but not over others due process requires that the case be reminded back to the board of immigration of the issues in which allow them to dismiss the application in general or the appeal and this essentially that the streamlined decision of the i a e a doesn't is not unconstitutional percent however it creates certain risks when the immigration judge makes various multiple grounds of denials and some of which are subject to review and others are not actually develop certain scenarios in which the board of immigration appeals could ultimately dismiss a case and yet prevent the petitioner from seeking judicial review because of an unknown determination as to whether or not that  using family act as well as other international treaties such as the covenant on rights of the child and the international covenant on civil political rights but more specifically in reference to the congressional enactment as found in title forty two u s code sections twelve three three seven one through twelve three seventy seven those are specific and especially of executing a specific act which provides a minor child is deserving of certain rights and those rights are not considered in the context of the immigration proceedings and the fact that immigration proceedings of course do not allow the minor child to become a part of the minor child does not have an opportunity to present those rights independent of the analysis of the hardship requirement that is generally reviewed by the by the administrative judges it is only with the federal court from the government at this time c the well looking at what the court said including of what would not be a discretionary determination would be something that  is an allegation of constitutional or statutory error but not second guessing the manner in which that agency exercised its discretion in other words i without jurisdiction and now the court is called to review the district court's hades decision and you know they have before them a complete record of the district court's reasoning and decision himself agrees that the interests are almost identical and the child simply doesn't have an independent right what the petitioner would like the court to do is write a different statute that states that the court will consider the best interest of the trial the statute says that the board will consider exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative the statute isn't based on the in the church that the petitioner references that deals with other standards for revealing you with two questions addressed to the continuance of issue number one is that raised in your brief to this court condition that the son and the father were both concerned about the nosebleeds what was the onset of that i'm not aware of it ever full or if it developed any worse than than what specific question is how how long before the hearing where the continuance was denied i believe on was the medical condition known to the father i believe the record reflects that it was two years that the child had suffered from the nosebleeds that's what the transcripts reveal what it the they are for and tell me if it's wrong would it be fair for someone to argue that your client had up to two years to gather the information that could have been presented at the scheduled hearing i the record also reflects a matter of tell me if that is a correct statement or not i don't believe under the facts of this case only and that the there at the transcripts reveal i a significant american fusion on the part of the petitioner to obtain certain type of medical treatment witnesses in reference to that specific regard and that issue thank you thank you counsel for the thank both council for their argument the case just argued will be submitted for decision and we will turn to the case of khan the against ashcroft the counselor present if