be that the case what we have is a statement that he was removable an admission by him that he was removable it's hard for a court of law to overlook that admission well the notice terminated and he was terminated because of the allegation of minute fight made by his first wife and he did not can he didn't contest it because he wanted to get off to leave as many the regulations require you step back and see whether we have any jurisdiction to address it under the mat on a case which as i understand it interpreted the this particular type of revocation as being with sufficiently within the discretion of the attorney general to fall within the preclusion of review the madness that terminations not based on the facts of that case but based on the content of the statutory provision is that right now the reasoning is this statute is one that gives the attorney general discretion and therefore it is a statute that is looked into by the jurisdictional stripping provision it is so and that that provision as i understand it covers discretionary decisions and constitutional t stations and factual decisions and legal decisions they're all none of them reviewable because it fits within that category how do you respond to that may not be the view that part i have explained to my client and some it's just the discretion that can't be reviewed it's that decision can't be reviewed ok because the statute has discretionary language you want to proceed to the have you taken an appeal from that denial a direct appeal from that denial of the second petition could you have did you and if we don't like the outcome don't come back here is not right i understand from your perspective and maybe from this court's perspective it's more efficient to deal with everything all at once but my i don't say it's before the court so the question the question is i understand what larson is asking about is whether it's actually before the court or not that it's been mentioned or referred to that happens a lot of people  say oh yeah your honor there's another suit i'm bringing that i might bring or there's another thing that i might challenge later you should know about it was just what is a part of the record in a district court proceedings is a part of consider that as we've heard it if it had any relevance or if it was relevant to the petition on the revocation but i think the question is whether she had the even the authority at that point to review whether or not the second petition itself the denial was rightly or wrongly granted and i think that's what we're struggling with is that the district case where i'm coming from i'm an appellate judge unfamiliar with how the appeals court works if if somebody if a district court gets its decision appealed to us and then later the district court does something else we just don't even look at that you people can talk about it and you can say this is happening we can say that's interesting we just don't even look at it because that's been appealed to us even though it came out of the same case even though another appeal could have been filed and it could have been consolidated but that didn't happen we just don't look at it why is it any different when you're talking about a district court reviewing an agency would seem like the same rule would apply you look at the cases that have been petitioned for review and you don't look at things that happened after the petition for review was filed unless unless the petition for review is amended to include that we did it to district judge did not require me to amend my complaint that was filed with the district court sixteen after the motion to dismiss was briefed and the plaintiff's counsel asked if they could submit it as an exhibit and the court gave him leave to do so but he never and you know amended the complaint he never move to amend the complaint there were no allegations in the complaint regarding the one i want thirty denial which hadn't even occurred at the time at the that the complaint was filed earlier that judge treated that agency action is not before it was not before the court it was just an exhibit that's what the district court created acted on the basis of its not being before that's clear that the only issue that was briefs the out how should the cou the complaint to allegations regarding the one thirty tonight too late for him to bring a case now well it's all well he can still bring keanu case you know this case yes he's not out of time of doing that thank you very much for your time appreciate this call the next