the court had requested that the council address the question of whether the immigration judges determination of a particularly serious crime is a legal court determined that the drunk driving under the florida statute did not constitute an aggravated felony this was an issue of law in the present case the immigration judge found that is required by the matter of friend test you this determination raises a question of law as well as the fact that it violates the he's on the step which procedure can i notice that the original version of the bill before it was passed into law had had the words pure question effect and the way it was after that if went through the conference committee they took out that language to make it a no longer a pure question of fact so i believe the correct application of that law would be that if the team makes question of law in fact that this court still has jurisdiction to review it least because it's just a question of law is that your position or is it something else i think it's because it's a question of even if it's a question of a mixed question of law in fact that  enacted i don't think it needs to be added nay and it doesn't say shall or must and he has not and has allowed it to the discretion to evaluate each case on a case by case basis which is the authority to do that it doesn't say he may also apply to any case by case basis the authority saying that we reviewed a noble in the question whether something is a particularly serious crime you want to forgive me if i read maps of a little bit differently that there is no review of the attorney general's discretionary  decision what am i missing when i'm thinking of  it might be a question of law but then you have lots of which stands however is that it is not a question of law and this court doesn't have any jurisdiction over the attorney general's designation of a crime or series of crimes as particularly extenuating circumstances and we think those are right and we're not going to find that he's committed particularly serious crimes so instead of making a hard and fast rule there's a way around it in this case the immigration judge did if i had a way around it was warranted and that's purely discretionary  question of law but i'm not sure how it could be presented in again what hypothetical but that might be depending on how it was but for one thing i think everybody should just make a lot of mistakes and the make sense to have the distinction for the reason you're saying and that is that in the end a silence is just fresheners you don't need that discretion is can be can be exercised at the end after the eligibility terminations are my case discretionary approach to the matter that it has to be by regulation and that's really my question i asked you in everything you know if we disagreed with you and actually got to the merits there's a particular serious crime in the recent past this court has taken a couple of judges to task and we the agency has taken action against them but we joe as a matter of course there may be a way with which the court will disagree but i don't think there's ever we're constitutionally attacking the way the board has applied the standards and this court has uniformly rejected that so i would say no but we're talking about asylum here and i know that concerns the court more but i would also say that it concerns the is interesting what you're saying is before that's an interesting way to approach it but i think what we have in this but unfortunately we don't get to it in this case because for so many reason with without waiving the exhaustion arguments and it's interesting but he didn't raise it to the boards of the board didn't have the opportunity and i don't think this is the case in which this court can raise but can reach the issue i would love to be able to but he did not raise it to the board he raised different arguments to the board he didn't say that and we made that point in our brief ok thank you very much thank you ron it really has been a pleasure  i think the government may be arguing here that the the only standard is the discretion of the gracious judge and that discretion that the immigration judges decision then is what's a particularly serious crime is reviewable only by the way and not by this court because if they're saying it's a discretionary decision and with the present tendency to approve most of those  not the not the intent of the law or of congress to have that be the situation that the immigration judge have virtually unlimited discretion and to make this determination in the absence of any regulations by the by the attorney general