and two just a few blocks from here immigration judge kenneth just of some grants of two twelve c really to mr curry this was done after many hearings when after having observed mr curry's demeanor over many hours and after having heard the testimony of his wife and others judge just of some factual findings were correct his legal analysis was correct and he properly exercised his discretion significantly he found that the best four the v a reversed judge justice and in a decision that was factually wrong legally wrong and such an abuse of discretion constitute manifest injustice it was factually wrong because it found  hideous and on what grounds the issue is that the combination of the board's factual and legal errors results in manifest injustice this case is about this third be filed in our court not before him so he dismissed and i believe that he is he was wrong because he has jurisdiction constitutional the the district court exceeded the circuit court after real id has less power to right or wrong than the district court did and still doesn't are hideous thus real id fails the are there any cases that far closer to making this argument none of which i'm worried  very moved the proceedings were triggered by mr perris own innocent prose they naturalization application if he had not chosen to try to upgrade from green card to citizenship immigration never would have paid the slightest bit of convictions were serious convictions and we're not we're not talking about someone that had a conviction for petty theft and then is claiming rehabilitation that those times they haven't decided that neither are we talking about rape a final order remove all or are you just arguing like mr sherry just criminal elements any alien but only if there is manifest injustice if the issues are limited to statutory issues or constitutional if you put those together you have manifest injustice and again this is really i believe a matter of first impression i found nothing that discusses in the immigration context and even not remotely in the criminal context the phrase manifest  tell i believe that they should have in addition to at the very least the district court should have transferred the case to the circuits under under conversion and merger deportation he just litigated that order for nearly a decade as we pointed out in our brief he's been before the pos three times the immigration court three times district court two times and now it comes back to this court the real i d act in part was enacted to stop this sort of and loosen litigation to give every alien who your criminal  shooter in that the guy does not under the under the relay g i get an automatic new hearing before the district court new evidence or hearing there is a law on that today i believe for the first time constable correct me if i'm wrong they're changing the i think if there were a case that either of you could resolve this to pot just positively we probably wouldn't be sitting here an oral argument we would have submitted it on the grave and so you know the point is just in terms that if we you know what do we write an opinion on this so that there would be ninth decide that constitutional question western ears hear judge zillah he said well i don't have jurisdiction to consider it so i'm going to dismiss instead of saying well he's raising a constitutional question the proper place for this maybe is petition to have been filed with the circuit court i'll transfer it to the circuit court but he year this last case was never filed so also did not check the record but let me get back to the question about what was raised to not raise now you seem to be arguing among other things that the agency record adequate understates their well to to answer it this way i mean other than that you wanted different results i mean that that doesn't sometimes the the agency that often the agency by itself gets everything wrong the facts and the law in it and it takes a further evidence or hearing to flesh that out for example in one thousand nine hundred two rather pickle mentioned the fact that eventually hearings in haiti as in immigration are the just the district director made his decision we petition for review of that decision havior the district court heard it and had an evidentiary hearing we had the district director on the witness stand the court held that