to the merits if we have to look at the facts but design understand what happened here what we were asking is that we clarify the law our circuit law and the way in which we have interpreted  understanding of my agreement that any man is premised on the fact that this court has to deal with those cases before and since you know you can't agree with both me my question just missed because they go in opposite directions if you agree with both of us you said nothing i suggested quite the opposite and i get i do want to answer this question fully but the question i asked is if we overrule remove our cases would we not be in a position where we have to created in thin air in the interim rules that created the cat regulation they specifically said we rely on when it comes to relocation issue was came in from the asylum haven't heard back they i just hope he's alive honestly i hope he's well and i hope if we make some traction due to e man or maybe another stay that the government can bring him back the way this this case developed and the speed with which it came to this court we were unable to determine whether or not he's in fact in the united states if you were in the united states at this point the case would not be moot however he's not in the united states position of the government would be and every single one of those cases stand still bristling where you say every one of those cases stands for the principle that every other court has refused to accept jurisdiction over factual matters a separate issue is whether the question of the has no jurisdiction to review matters of fact in cappy says that's what every single one of those cases stand for every one of the circuits has rejected jurisdiction in that search in that country in that country in that context every one of them has dismissed the case as a result of a factual issue and it had one that's all i was trying to say i'm a brief at that point the separate issue that this court needs to deal with is its laws dealing with what's a question of fact and what's a question of law that's that was the criteria that i use whether something amounts to torture was the question in that case this question here is whether or not torture is more likely than a totally different issue and th correct and to answer the question as you asked earlier if this court answers only the questions the issues that were framed by petitioner in petitioners opening brief to this court this court could answer all of those questions on legal basis and there would be no factual presume that we answer those questions we deal with the legal issues and then we would remain and then judge kozinski in here it's not picking up to it that issue to a different level it obviously depends on how you deal with those with those legal issues if you agree with the government that the there is no authorization where the titian review to be filed under two forty two eighty four and if you look at the this is actually just in a corporation of section twenty two forty two d of the foreign affairs restructuring act two forty two in two city by the plain language of that statute by what congress did in trying to incorporate these things back the some of them got a straight through for  court raised two issues that the government doesn't believe even are present in the case because the more grace below and they weren't raised by the petition in his opening breach of the court so our position is those really are even controversial you look at the the fact that the board mentions limits galban and uses the word impossible you can look at that look at the analysis that they applied and the fact that they were doing clear review of the immigration judge's decision which did not use the word impossible and his analysis in fact showed that it was possible as opposed to you if you got a negative burden of proof there his analysis said look everything about what you told us on the stances you were able to leave you would not go back there and if you did go back you would be able to leave and if you weather the places there is no demonstration that you would the person is likely in his other places it was all affirmative that is there is plenty of evidence that you can he would not be tortured in other places and to the immigration judge said you have not demonstrated that you could not relocate safely if some other part of the country and want to destroy all the other content on appeal you need one argument that one argument was but wait there are federal officers involved factual questions of credibility and internal relocation the second is the higher above question of the likelihood of torture within mexico and that  police were involved that factional finding and the image in the board looked at the record said but that's exactly not what you said on the stand which you said on the stand was that you didn't have any evidence that federal judicial police were involved you were speculating that that was the case talking to counsel and saying these are the problems i'm having what do you have to say about that and they go back and forth one of the things that the immigration judge says is look i believe what he had to say about what happened to him in seat of the dogs is that i believe so position is true that as a places he thinks that some of these people may have moved to other places he thinks that they may have recognized him he thinks that they may still have something against him he thinks that they're going to torture him if they see him and if you runs into them and they recognize him and they get them again he was control the board simply saying look that's just not enough that you're thinking that that's the case that's just not evidence that was the purpose of the cross examination was tested on cross examination and it was the trauma he didn't have to be a factual  your evidence shows that you can't hasn't spoken on the question of impossibilities either to that extent so with the got the governor's position if you if i may is that doing away with the word impossible and replace it with the word could not or whatever the use the use the terms of the regulation that's fine there's no there's no problem with that anything else that this court does at this time would be getting ahead of the board so if the court feels that it has to address the question of a separate kind of unique standard for internal relocation for correctly this man was burned with cigarettes this man has sat i was burned by cigarettes by on the cover agents this man and i said they did not have uniforms on them this man has said they did helicopters to fly to mexico city and pick up could not be his this man has done everything he could remember to say to the judge that these are federal agents they don't have helicopters our against the convention against torture against our government stand to protect what's really the judge's style and i can't believe it's meant to protect you so keep in mind the basis of the judge's decision keep in mind with a b a a has attempted to try and facts and that area from my side i would tend to determine whether the agency has stumbled across from or not a sensible and the and not just my belief that i wouldn't be able to come up with anything additional to that within two