action or the expiration of the ministry of appeals unit appeal and my question would be why shouldn't we find that you failed to exhaust your administrative would agree that there is a requirement at a minimum that the petitioner exhaust administrative remedies before the federal court would have jurisdiction under your theory of the case i think it general you in this particular case with this particular type of visa which i confess i do not have much experience with because we don't see these cases very often what without dirs would you point to th and so my question is what factors do we look at to decide whether or not the attorney general abused his discretion in revoking  that the attorney general shall in this case if it's i read the language it says that in essence he means for whatever reason he deems appropriate i'm not exactly paraphrasing here quoting the language of paraphrasing decision should be affirmed were many standards within that the portability crown that the attorney general had to overcome before he could decide whether or not to place an alien roof in removal proceedings so there were several here i understand here because they're not from the circumstances where the criteria are totally discretionary the criterion applied here sounds like this here is not a manager entirely within his discretion we must look at the statute we don't look to the regulations and we don't look to in this case a foretaste law to determine whether or not there is that the statute provides absolute discretion attorney general had to overcome before he could make the discretionary determination to place an alien and removal proceedings for having me committed marriage part the third part of the test is that the attorney general may take the action those standards however it's not for this court to then second guess whether or not the agency is making the correct decision or the incorrect decision it's the agency's it's completely been entirely within the recent language of the provision however that court first of all did not decide whether or not he even had jurisdiction to just sort of assume that he did have jurisdiction over that case and i think more importantly iraq iraq had not  look at the plain language of the statute sometimes you turn to the title if it's not clear however the plain language is clear that it is pertaining to section one o one through remember that thirteen seventy eight i believe and i don't congress intended and i don't think it would be the main reason to be stripped of scorched earth stiction to review discretionary decisions but i do believe that was one of the decisions in iraq i wrote in trying to economize the immigration system attorney general deep outside of whether or not the alien that the legal standard for being a manager for an executive in the first instance tell it's it's a little bit broader than that your hon trying to figure out what's the language that tells us what the standards are that would help us determine who ability that terminates i guess you know it's not a discretionary determination in that instance the attorney general must grant must deny if failing to meet certain eligibility standards and spencer and in fact the government conceded in spencer that this court does have jurisdiction to review those actions the denial for the regulations in other words the statute could say that the attorney general from granted visa completely as his whim without any standard whatsoever congress could do that if it wanted to but what's the difference between exercising discretion and informed by whether or not the petitioner meets certain regulatory provisions as to determine whether or not the facts support that conclusion the factual finding that a person is or is not acting in a managerial capacity that goes to the you sure whether