thirty years he's married to a u s citizen u s citizen children he's here before the court today in his nd round of his petition for review because he was granted permanent resident status by an immigration judge in two thousand and twelve of them t that they said that no matter what the standard is we decided that we will not as a matter of discretion grant him or leave how do we have jurisdiction and so your honor it's not clear that they're sort of standard so if they've said that they would grant relief even if a lower standard applies and you're saying they shouldn't use the lower standard i don't see what we have to do here i don't think that is clear because remember the regulation is premised on a matter of gene confusion and if you look at matter from her trevino did its regular description right regular discretion the same argument so even if it's a regular discretion that same page and i think judge charles just referenced this when they say your client presented some positive significant positive factors are they looking at the offense i don't don't i don't know didn't address that issue at all so i understand your honor that it's an issue of discretion but in the significant amount of time that the last you know i don't even require the extreme hardship standard under the under that got to let alone be exceptional an extremely unusual hardship standard from the regulation that they were outweighed by the negative factors and factors the negative features of crime and that is as far as the board needed to go and it's also as far as we can go here because that discretionary determination is not a question it's not a legal question it's therefore outside of this court's jurisdiction in this matter because it's discretionary so we would argue simply on that basis alone to dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction your opponent just mentioned a nd ago that maybe at least as of i don't know if this was true as of the two thousand and seventeen decision but now that even a statutory extreme hardship standard no longer applies given how long ago the conviction was sustained is to establish a series of series of issues that are ultimately discretionary including whether the crime was serious enough to trigger the heightened standard whether he meets the exceptional extremely unusual standard and then finally even after all that the ultimate determination of discretion it's that ultimate determination of discretion that resolves this case here because the board ultimately said look either way we go here we've wager positive equities we looked at the crime and we say that the negative factors outweigh th positive factors i guess i don't understand i did a statute or the reg operate in the way you just described i assume that what the statute the statutory extreme hardship he entered in the in the heightened standard under the rug were  basically channeling the deal to mitt exercise of discretion saying under what circumstances that discretion can be exercised they really for the petitioner so if and when judge college was was questioning petitioners counsel about the the statement in the eyes two thousand and seventeen decision that they do essentially say i agree with them that even if we didn't apply this heightened standard from the regulation even if we just apply that the normal standard i assume that they were saying even if we just went with the statutory extreme hardship standard we would nonetheless say that he hasn't met that standard and that's why we're not going to actors or discretion is favor my reading that incorrectly well i think what leads me to believe that the board is talking about its ultimate exercise of discretion is when it simply says we cannot conclude that it is in the best interest of the united states to grant the respondent the privilege of lawful permanent residence that's going and one more thing i just wanted to mention i'm not going to keep you here is that in briefing petitioner and mentioned that the board did not fully weigh all of the positive and negative factors when it comes to hardship and i think that's not true i think the immigration judge weighed all of the factors in front of him in the board relay those factors in its discretion which is it is allowed to do under the standard of review and simply came out a different way petitioners simply inviting the court to reweigh evidence here which is just not the  this would be if anything it would just be a change of facts because you're one of the more to consider that facts and the proper vehicle would be a motion to reopen knox this because your view well i think the concern i had when i heard your opponent say that was that the just want to go back and look if for some reason the the board's reference to the board thought it was at the very least governed by the extreme hardship standard of the statutes themselves and that turns out as of tw seventeen not to be true i guess that's what that's what raise the question of my own well shouldn't shouldn't that error be corrected and have them do the analysis all over again i understand your point which is that it just goes that is your point that that just goes to the what think that more than fifteen years had a laughed and said the extreme hardship standard should not under to apply apply to the case it was not addressed by the board and upright and only becomes relevant it makes it no longer a good law and not the exceptional an extremely unusual hardship not relevant because it wasn't a fundamental change in law and quite got the wrong standard the last thing that i wanted to mention when it is the issue of the fifteen years there's not actually much heat on an issue year issue your opponent does that ends up being irrelevant because ultimately the discretion being exercised by the board was simply to deny the occasion for adjustments and the determinations not affected at no longer good lot and i think the entire tape needs to be reconsidered by the agency in light of the discretionary issue to fifteen years and a significant time over all that had to laugh instead grant initially from the immigration change and if you get it out of time there's no further questions ok very good thank you for your argument has just argued is submitted