and his application was referred to an immigration judge for consideration in the removal proceedings when he appeared at his master counter hearing he withdrew his asylum application based on the erroneous belief that he was eligible for other forms of relief from articulate any reason i found that the petitioners i desired to reinstate him as a sum of occasion given the circumstances was reasonable and that the ira also refused to seeking to reopen the case has already been concluded he's appearing at an individual county hearing that's been scheduled time isn't blocked off to consider applications he wants to make for relief from removal nothing could be more i just wanna make sure now i understand the argument you're saying that this is a unique motion for reinstatement and that it's looking at the reinstatement motion we can determine we have the attorney general's discretion to do what is necessary and appropriate for the disposition ok so i know i understand if if if you're asking us to review whether they apply the prime fish or rule way ok but i'm having trouble understanding and i apologize for being slow but what is the standard by which we judge whether they adopted that standard appropriately or not what do we look to really the only issue as far as the i a e a should have been concerned was whether there was good reason for him to have withdrawn the application was a reason to let him reinstate the application that was the merit of the application  being alleged but there is not no all past persecution of would indicate that there's going to be anything in the future well the i j a didn't articulate any reason for having a permit if the did not more of a reasoned conclusion because the end result is the same that by withdrawing the application there is no longer an application that exists there's nothing that the there's no benefit that is gained from the withdraw of the application just as there is no benefit gained when the application is denied and any advance there is no standard for measuring i request for the denial of a request to reinstate and as a result the court doesn't have jurisdiction under five jurisdiction you're saying that even though you're supposed to exercise discretion we can't review it for an abuse of discretion not when there is no standard this court has stated you can't give us any authority as to why you treat this motion the same as removal proceedings the circuit recently got its hands flat for taking upon itself to resolve the question whether or not change resolve that question of so that we should not take it upon ourselves to do so even if it appeared in this case for example that the party to which  this court i mean we can take judicial notice generally but is this court really in a position where down through reasonable for future prosecution predict well what's going on in mexico than at the record and then finds that well has he established the case and that means that the court can consider usually noticeable facts and especially where his claim is based on his affiliation with a party seeking to reinstate it so it really is a matter he found yes he voluntarily beef with what you're with but to be i said that he acted reasonably ultimately and in wanting to to renew it and as far as the courts ability to be promoted thank you both on the final case on calendar is howard vs barnhar we are faced with a question of first impression and that is interpretation of the statute that requires the commissioner to make reasonable efforts that a pediatrician or other appropriate specialist to evaluate the individual's case here it was specifically asked to call a medical expert to testify at the hearing he specifically declined to do so so review of the medical evidence the ael jay made a review of the medical evidence in his decision then reached the conclusion that the claimant did not equal the listings but he never married those two things effort to have the child examined because there are already provisions for that in terms of consultative examinations the commissioner said the statute says a commissioner must make a reasonable effort to have the keys evaluate i think institutionalization the addition the case involved the testimony and i think that was very important even the trace that she was credible and she identified a number of deaths that so i think a medical expert would tried mightily to find anything at all and i couldn't find a thing not a thing as in this trial this is a cut back on the statue with a cut back as i recall on the benefits of available is not in cases of child disabilities congress appears to have been focused on getting someone who's familiar with child diseases and development so the other extreme other individual does it enough if they are just someone who's unix experienced in dealing with psychiatric problems or rheumatoid arthritis or whatever it may be it doesn't psychologist or at least can't say well i've got experience in dealing with children i would object i would say the stench says appropriate specialist and that's not an appropriate specialist design it's your question  there are a couple other things that i'm only going to touch on briefly because they're not the overall focus of the case but the other problem with this case is the selective analysis of the evidence most specifically his failure to look at the arizona long term care  twenty seven i believe psychologist and your psychological fellow fellow school psychologist occupational therapist but this is an issue that's troublesome to me because i do note th statute cut back on benefits to children but did take the trouble to specify the view of qualified pediatrician or other individual like knowledge through evaluate the case and what i'm concerned about although in this case there seem to be have been a lot of doctors looking at this unfortunate girl that somehow the notion that the a scam satisfied the statute by saying well you know they're examining or consulting doctors here who fit the category o having pediatric type experience so that's enough to satisfy the mandate of the statute i don't find that an appealing reading of the statute doesn't seem consistent with what congress had in mind that they wanted an expert who would assist the ael jan make an effort to get that expertise to help him or her evaluate the case and that's why i'm concerned even in the given the number of people you're listing here that those people really evaluate the case or did they come in as we so often see the case yesterday where the surgeon worked at the woman's chronic sinus condition but he was just looking at a narrow issue yes he was an expert in sinusitis or whatever but he wasn't there to evaluate the full picture and you all were arguing your administration was arguing well you know there's not enough evidence to support there so how do we just how do we ensure that he actually treat th evaluated are able to review some of the medical evidence of record nasally indicate that sometimes they they might evaluate the case the way the commissioner usually has commission or some shall make reasonable efforts and it seems that the intent of the statute is to make sure that there is at least in doctor you know evaluate the case and sometimes a claimant may come forward and not have any medical evidence they might just have you know just a couple reports from occupational therapist a speech therapist or you know lay witness reports and this is where we ensure that you have at least have a physician appropriate specialist evaluate the case and that's what happened in this case the client was the case was evaluated by two two state agency physicians and they came in at what stage true but as we heard in different contexts of the judicial officer can make statements that push the right buttons but substantively do something quite different and the concern one has when repeatedly cites the wrong process he may invoke the statute but how do we know he wasn't really applying a different standard even though  indicated that the evidence did indicate some improvement in this just solution in this case because the return determination he didn't have to find that there was an improvement in  can see physicians review the available medical evidence everything in this case was not available to those positions in particular the commission relies upon dr leonard second evaluation leonard never saw a physician who a testified at the hearing would have had both of those items of evidence available to him or her to evaluate the case and that i think is very important the only other point i want to make use about this standard of review by the l j rather and that is that it's hard for me to understand how the commissioner can say well this business about medical improvement the individual evaluates the case in this individual does that mean that there has to be one person testifying at the hearing that sums it all off or can it be the evaluation  j could could bundle up the whole record and send it off to an expert and say you know here's a list of erotic tori's and send me a copy of them allow me to respond and you know we could go down that road as a practical matter i think that's more difficult than having it in an expert actually coming to the hearing where other judge and then turn around and say well here is my medical judgment as to whether this child needs three quills the medical criteria in the listing of impairment and i have this rather horrendous footnote in my