jurisdiction to review the constitutional claims and questions of law that are raised in his petition the government's choice not to engage with the substance of those claims and to instead repeat the same argument on its motion  concede that in the opening brief before the government raised the criminal alien bar that some of the claims in the petition are outside of the court's jurisdiction but since the court but since the government raised that criminal alien bar apparent in mr sharif's opposition brief and in the reply brief on the merits of the government has only made the jurisdictional argument and we pointed out the parts of the petition that do raise colorable constitutional claims and questions of law or by not including it in the appeal to the b that's right your honor so just because it's in the petition doesn't get you anywhere it has to be in the opening brief as well right the petition is the opening brief your respond to that country purport and he never had an opportunity what about what about motions to reconsider never allowed the board to look at the st instance that a country report that the immigrant didn't have noticed in prior proceedings or that didn't exist at the time of the removal proceedings that also violates the board's own precedent which requires the evidence for the board's considerations to have existed at the time of the culmination of the removal proceedings and in april two thousand and eight that country report did not exist inconsistency or was not requested then this no opportunity to respond isn't constitutional and or was forfeit i mean that's just kind of basic administrative civil not considering it at all it seems that the was consideration of the just and waited for your honor there is an important distinction between the way that the board gets to an argument and ignoring the argument completely i position in the position is that the board ignored arguments completely and we know that on the face of the ports opinion and the fact that very large portions of mr sharif's evidence and arguments were never mentioned by the board and not only that but one thousand and thirteen the united states was not acting on valid deportation orders to somalia and so there were not recent reports from the united states to somalia during the time period when mr sharif's removal proceedings were occurring just by the fact that that evidence was before the board the board said mr sharif for failing to present evidence of how an american deportee would have been treated in two thousand and eight in somalia that evidence could not have existed because deportations were not occurring and the board had that evidence before it that's the kind of mental everybody gets a free pass for that for that reason no your honor because what i want what would distinguish many how many cases of administrative agency review do we have we reiterate that the agency doesn't have to cover everything in its opinion well your honor is correct that the board is entitled to a presumption of regularity but th question before this court and additions are constitutional questions and so here we have evidence that the boy did not consider the arguments that mr sharif raised specifically with respect to the fact that he could not have presented the kind of evidence   available at the time of his removal proceedings the bird that analysis and instead used that as a reason so by mr sharif from his reopening relief that he saw that's a legal error and that's the kind of question that this court can review and so this course case did not specifically involve the criminal alien by that was the hobbs you can store a case in two thousand and nine where the court how about the board's failure to consider the entire petition was a legal error it didn't involve the criminal alien bar but it still discussed a legal legal issue that may be true your honor but it's a sense that misinterpreted the historical of the clear view i think that's right on the merits of the substantive issues that but fact that a court and reaching that still looks a bit actually what we looked at the fact that the appeared to ignore a reg governing reg of the attorney general you don't have that here do you i don't i don't think so that's a different that's a different that's a far more arguable or obviously glare than simply saying oh well you know you appl ultimate hearing more than a decade ago in the present time that stringent standard for which the birdbaths of mr sharif finds no basis in the plain language of the regulations or the statute and this is the kind of change country circumstance error  good morning your honors you know use of for the government the court should dismiss the petition for review because this petition is covered under the criminal embar the petition was required to demonstrate concert of claims of questions of law the failure to do so  opinion an argument clearly presented by the the alien petition that is not that that air cannot rise to the constitution i believe that is correct that if there the agency even if we if we can the petition and the arguments made to the agency and see that there were there were two evidence three nuances that the board didn't respond to and it's but i don't believe you should i don't believe you we've we've considered the fact that no that there were no deportees from twenty million fifty two thousand and thirteen well it consider what this question the case is about whether there's a material change in country conditions that's the partitions burden here in order to justify reopening from two thousand and eight kind of confused but what makes his argument that the told the total failure to consider are wonderful arguments is a legal air either under the a p a or that or the due process that's his argument for jurisdiction well i guess i guess our focus was that the fact that the agency did consider that he did conduct a thorough analysis and concluding that he you can say that i would expect you to say that would apply even if we have jurisdiction you're trying to slam the front door well that's a certain you know then we we can we can go on to the merits and we will if we have if we if we should d making their case of the circumstance of what the terrorists this time a terrorist groups were doing in somalia at that time so the question i don't think notice would be appropriate they did in fact have noticed the fact that they raised it so we think we should go to the merits on that question that that's a motion to reconsider possible i don't i don't believe it was i don't think a mushroom us reconsider is required in terms of raising those sorts of challenges i mean has he but he could have presented the every he could have made that argument the time well in fact whether it's a due process question i guess what my focus is on the fact that that the agency was entitled to do so when the fact that he raised it to the agency i don't think that kind of what would kind of undercut any sort of argument that there was a due process issue it to begin with that is affected by the criminal alien by yes your honor and she didn't consider the impact of the criminal alien but no it did not that's that's distinguishable but that is the single and you can go on and distinguish it actually on the merits but i but your your s whether fisher's disagreement with the factual conclusions of the agency or not before this court and based on that the petition can be can be dismissed echoed criticism that's true your honor but this court's decisions even in the face of the criminal alien part do show that it is appropriate to question whether the board properly applied the correct legal standards a number of cases ch