lead respondents asylum application was separate from his ex wife's this is supposedly what the lawyer said and to that their son would go forward on the lead respondants asylum application as a derivative applicant so this seems to me going to the be irate  parent you know i'm very confused by your presentation and probably by the record on page forty of your brief you say the son was never withdrawn from the mother's i just asylum claim the son was allowed to withdraw his own ninety seven application similarly situated such a child missing some of the benefits i understand that could be i seem to think there was an election made that the son decided to go with the father too bad you're asking us to undo that to send it back to see if somehow you can rea ttach the son to the mother's that's what it's not what's happening and then i figure you will you conclude from that that he will automatically get it because the mother what  disagree with it was all involving the genteel party and the i j a went into in some detail the husband's participation in the jack to your party and when it was his wife who was heavily involved in she going back five times with no problems with the judge to your party have been lateness of the motion it is extremely unusual for us to take that kind of step i've never done it before myself but i felt upon preparing for this argument that there were issues that the board needed to address that you didn't have needed further clarification by the board in what respect well i mean a difficult position your honor is because like i can't confess error on behalf of my client agency nor my sure the that's a was wrong with that we have done an awful lot of work on this case for you to come before us right now and tell us you can't give us any insight into what's what i feel like i can give you your interfaith garners we think that there were there should have been more than individualized analysis on the well founded fear because the i j a immigration judge  primarily primarily on and i first credibility finding that the board did not did not uphold most of his decision was based on that on that finding which is no longer before the court and therefore the board should that well this is a government have a position i mean obviously you want it examined but is he or is he not attached to the father and was there a strategic choice made by counsel for him continues to to be there for that reason we want the boy to go back and tell us how that how that plays out when he was also on his mother's applicable why don't we just remained with instructions to board t grant to or to treat him as if he were still attached to the grant which was given to the mother as what would be wrong with that they would necessarily be anything wrong with that your honour's but he still they still h find that he is eligible it may even have to go back to an immigration judge for a determination of whether he is in fact ultimately eligible to adjust status quo you disagree with the b i eighty six description of what happened here but i read a couple of times earlier but not that we disagreed but that there's that there's other issues involved i mean whether he's ultimately eligible is still there but the out there in their brief on appeal the respondents did not pride provide any arguments to demonstrate husband that is tele proceed and the attorney as far as i can tell from the record did not make any objection to that because at the time the son wasn't eligible for anything under the mother in other words the only way you could possibly get status at that time because the child  yes she did you did you read it last yesterday you don't have it with you i have it would you like me to look at it  this transcript at eleven twelve may twenty nine hundred ninety seven when i would have the son included in the father's application and what's the response of the keep going ok now that means the one thousand nine hundred seven application that he previously filed will be withdrawn is that correct that's correct your hon we've cited cases are in the middle of the street and what's to stop well again this i can definitely understand your concern you're on our way immigration seems to work if congress says we can do it that's fine i mean i don't i don't like citing cases but i don't like to go beyond our judicial authority either we're supposed to look at what the b i did and if it is legal and lawful decision and we will hear argument in