good morning your honour's hi i'm james rosenberg i am here on behalf of the appellant of this is a much simpler case than now when i listen to earlier this morning the case counsel and which to a certain extent i agree with this brief but to another extent i strongly disagree so if you'll allow me to present my views and i'll make it rather brief it's not going to run that long or  a sponsor the court has jurisdiction continuing to review and to remain under reverse a decision i don't dispute that what i dispute is timing and timing becomes important on this for the following reasons my client as is pointed out was removed from the united states he was removed because he picked up his wife and children in san diego to my knowledge he did not cross the border he did not pick anybody else up and they were smuggled into the united states because they were having problems in armenia based on his problems in armenia i don't dispute that he was removed from the united states i'm not disputing that it hasn't been raised as i don't believe so and if i may continue i personally think that the in have the right to review of the decision what i don't like and what you may think i'm crazy and bring into this court is the fact the way it was done my client was denied the opportunity to file an asylum application why was he denied an opportunity because it must be filed one year of entry which in this case was the reentry and during that year i actually tried to refile up with the proper office and because it was before the immigration court it was denied because it's already in front of an immigration judge now what am i complaining about well my client was removed obviously somebody should have notified the board of immigration appeals i think the somebody should be the agency that removed them which was the other side of the litigation they didn't i did not hide the fact that he was removed it's in his declaration which are prepared filed in the immigration court to lead it right out and i laid out the problems he had after he went back to armenia which included you should excuse the expression i kind of flowed with it because we were back before a judge again the declaration which was file at that point said what had happened we did not hide that it was removed we didn't even cloak it we la right out i did several appearances with the client before an immigration judge before i was assigned to another judge for the trial the immigration judge initially was a judge bell bang who is now retired the trial attorney was a visiting judge and the whole who presently has been reassigned to los angeles there was the scuzz from before we started the trial judge told me the determination that because of all i want to exaggerate she made a determination that she felt she still had jurisdiction to hear the case because there were no factors that happened when my client left and while he was in armenia which we had documentation on and she did hear it this comes up again at the board of immigration appeals because god forbid i want as for the whole family we want now we did bifurcate the wife and the two children and they presently have been reground to the siloam and in fact now have lawful permanent residency cards and if the court is interested the wife has filed something called an i seven thirty two and a half years ago which would extend the grants to her husband why it's taking two and a half years i have no idea it's always taken just one year my argument is the timing on this tonight my client the right to have an asylum hearing properly  but my argument again is not that the be a lacked the jurisdiction i think they had the jurisdiction to review the decision my argument is the way it happened my client was denied an opportunity to have his think mr rosenberg pretty well stated what the case is and on the here is these families here he's here he's had a hearing in which he's determined he's entitled to asylum and and we say well yeah but they didn't have jurisdiction to make that arrest so after that the immigration court and the board had no jurisdiction to granting of those decisions and that your honor the important thing about that is the immigration court then gratian judges are creatures of jurisdiction so they if they don't have a jurisdiction they can't make populist action they can't make a ruling in the case they're not supposed to have in the first place and  of ordering that we be allowed to file an asylum application before the appropriate asylum offices that were within the first year because that's what we were denied the opportunity to do to be perfectly honest i have no idea there because that's what i wasn't allowed to do for this client and what will probably happen is the i seven thirty one and probably end up being approved next month in the whole thing along the moved as i don't know what's causing that