please the court dankosky for the petitioner on the lawns us into the counsel table thank you for this opportunity to speak with you today there have been recent developments in this area of the law first coming from the first circuit so before i get to the constitutional issue i did want to point out that a few weeks ago the first circuit in h a o u d versus ashcroft three fifty five thirty two zero one now recall that those two are incompatible and can exist in the same universe but the judge did quote to protect to make a phone record third the immigration judge denied withholding and fourth denied cash when it went up yes to one three and four or yes to two three and four because it can't be yes to one two three and four because one two are incompatible and more importantly  whether we can review that's right but the l j can make an alternative holding and say there's no it's not timely alternatively if it is timely there's no grounds for asylum in the b i a can addressed timel if they wanted to write an opinion they could say here's what we think about timeliness we've decided it's time we are in the alternative ground we reach the merits right isn't just a question of what we can do exactly and then of let me let you get back to  it relates to my structural problem my constitutional problem because the the preclude the partial preclusion review creates a situation in which in effect the statute congress is saying only blue eyed may apply but if the immigration judge is colorblind and makes a factual error as to i color the ability to even apply for asylum the statute says you may not review that  or the court more more likely immigration judges may mistakenly pre term that because and this is important to note in most other areas of law where there's a lack of judicial review it's because that why is it necessary for us to have a specific ruling on the g i and that's the problem i'm having my in fact we can review the l j's decision and if that's the case clearly the i am was unspecific and that's what you're saying that's the problem and they have to be specific well we have the alternative of reviewing what the a l j did right after a full blown asylum hearing in case he was wrong in case the board said he was wrong but we don't know what the board said they just said yes to everything well well then put under karate we we take  is reviewable and i break your regulations is there anything that tells me that when a board member affirms with that opinion that means they agree with all the conclusions of the mail today there's a reg that says we don't necessarily doesn't mean we agree with all the reasoning we agree with the result that's what the reg doesn't tell me if the word quote result those well then we don't know if the board agreed that it was untimely correct that's pressure on her but then again we have to don't we have to either person gets relief or not as opposed to result means we agree with all the holdings we may not agree with each step of the reasoning but we agree with all the holdings i'm not aware of any hot issue you've you've given me your position but there's really no authority right that's right so if we want to hold that result under the reg must logically mean they agree with every holding could we do that you tell me that isn't what they mean represent the great require the board issue a separate decision in that type of situation but my experience has been when the board does not agree with a specific holding it will issue a a different decision saying we don't agree with that however we affirm on other ground opinion because of the merits of it it's not getting proper  individual case should be streamlined and the court and talking to each has not said that this it's pretty much that it really doesn't matter because we're going to look at the immigration judge's decision and government you're going to live or die on that decision and the government is happy to accept that and that's the first circuit the alien raised a new issue on appeal to the board citing a new press what the what the court thought was a presidential decision and i believe the reason the court was so troubled by not knowing which holding the board addressed is because of the board