has been trying to have a fair hearing in this case for more than twenty years this is not an advertisement for the efficiency of our immigration system mr hariri it's really a very long time as you say the applicant basically the alien has a right to an interpreter but the board comes to the conclusion to the extent that this is properly before us at all which it may not be but if we indulge that it is for a minute  the board says there is no right for the witnesses but and besides that we have the affidavits and they find that to be a now what's wrong with that you know i believe you're referring to the board's decision dismissing the first  appeal in that i believe the board just missed the point completely they said well you don't need an interpreter because you speak english referring to mr khan they did not and i don't believe they addressed the fact that his mother and sister were able to testify immigration judge again i can't remember all these opinions but somebody says they're pretty much boilerplate anyway they really wouldn't have added all that much and i believe also administrative discretion not because it was a raise not because of the kinds of things we had st cyr and from that point onwards both the immigration judges who handled this case and the board have said that's done you know that much is surprised in the absence of expressive language which i hear find in the immigration laws to see that there is some principle that the board has only one choice which is to give a full don't know where the board doesn't have that discretion will they did not say that in their two thousand and seven decision and when it first came back to the court in front of judge power before he retired he determined that happened at that point in time in ninety seven they were seeking review of both the initial decision and the initial motion to reopen both of which the second the motion to reopen was denied by the board because the board said well you can't get to in ninety nine he came back before this court this court said talked about the very rare and very unique circumstances and the power of the judiciary to correct bizarre circumstances but this court concluded that though it did have jurisdiction should also perhaps address the point that first of all the timeliness of this argument begin with and secondly the fact that it was as a matter of  he loses one to twelve c and we've said that you don't have constitutional claims for the grantor denial of discretionary really your honor he was arguing that he was denied a fundamentally fair hearing because his witnesses were not able to testify he and we submit that two cents here does apply because it cut him off from judicial review of the errors of the board and judge would you mo and therefore say and also this court we believe can re address what it is addressed previously because clearly now to twelve c would have been available to him in one nine hundred ninety nine had sincere been decided before but it side saying the district court didn't have jurisdiction to address these due process and constitutional claims so we came back here and said well now we agree we have jurisdiction to address your claims but guess what there's no more to trial see because of a death look then the there must be a path to correct this deprivation this court said twice before no you don't have a path first because we don't have jurisdiction and secondly because to trial she's eliminated but since that to twelve she has been reinstated so we believe that he should be able to have now if you will those claims nonetheless we believe that the board did reopen they did not restrict in their order in two thousand and seven but they were saying we're only reopening for cash they said specifically we're reopening to and correctly decided to limit the proceedings to just the application for cat protection and as so where do we have that clue that it was a limited well the board's decision re manning the case clearly stated that it was for claims related to change country conditions in iraq which address the petitioners claim that he feared returning to iraq based on his religion and so that's what the immigration judge heard on on remand and and also as i stated all of the prior decisions at the board issued  i'm sorry what what do you mean by harvey has a matter of prosecutorial priority isn't discretion here is a person that everybody agrees has been fine ever since you know one m and the original immigration judge appears to have misunderstood her misinterpreted his records from prison and so it's just odd to me that if this is something the government especially now that he's earned  al of removal under cat i don't understand why we're here well your honor it's because petitioner has been filing motions to reopen and motions to reconsider multiple times over the years and so the attorney general has no power to acquiesce to you know a discretionary review of two twelve c and that the attorney general has a right winger you power in this area well your honor the as you stated before the petitioner has already had his chance to apply for to twelve cereal i don't understand that but are you telling me the attorney general has no power today if she wanted to to take another look at a particular to twelve  question are you denial no that's not what what i'm saying right now where it is she does have that power if she wanted to exercise it the tourney general could really reopen the proceedings but as the board has stated before at least he's had his chance to apply you know i understand you're talking about something different which is whether she's under a legal obligation to do that and i'm in a kind of a different i just want to make it clear that as a matter of her authority she could do that for some reason the board or you think based on his his past serious drug convictions for one past series conviction which he apparently has never repeated and he had a model record in the prison for that and in light of this country including the president on downs change of policy with respect even to drug issues there's a lot out there that makes it makes it a strange exercise i'm not telling you you can't do it so i understand your role in our role but it's a very all of cats at this time and there's at this time there is no threat that he will be removed to iraq so he is legally allowed to stay in this country but it appears that he wants his his green card back but he lost his green card but he is allowed to stay here and continue to have the protection of this country understood anything further and and also that the decision regarding ineffective assistance of counsel from the ninety's is like you said it hit that petition for abuse untimely and the court can review that one and if there's nothing else you