yes catalina from the time that she became aware of the deportation order and the fact that in the sound application had been filed on her behalf without her consent without her knowledge was in two thousand and five from that point she did actually diligently your honor she did file timely in her motion to reopen on april first of that year and that is the first time that she became aware of that deportation order after  did not know the actual harm of the misconduct that was committed upon her and this court has held in for part of the ins that the statute of limitations will be told until the alien is aware of the harm which resulted from the non attorney's misconduct  seems to suggest not only an objective standard but a subjective standard wherein the statute of limitations does not begin to toll until now that particular illian becomes aware not only of the fact that she has been subjected to misconduct but the actual harm that resulted attended the asylum interview camelina did not even know that an application had been submitted on her behalf as an atari did so fortunately and without her consent in fact in every published case that has been presented to this court all the aliens were aware that some sort of proceeding was pending pending on their behalf that an application had been filed they that they instigated or soon became aware of and all of those aliens were on notice unlike catalina making this case not only factually unique but also factually more compelling for an allowance of tolling catalina not only did not know she had no reason to now it defies reason why  receive her residency card and she went to speak to an atari owens and found that her office was empty she did act diligently she hired several attorneys at that time none of those attorneys those american attorneys realize the extent of the fraud for your request was not conducted at that point not until her final attorney in two thousand and five did a for a crest did catalina become aware of the actual harm that was committed upon her which  student on her application also the fact that the address on the application was not her own it was that of the h r e o and she never gave consent for anyone's address to be used other than her own and furthermore the beginning of the application states that catalina it does not reasonably follow that she would have known about the filing of the application and that being the issue before this court whether she had known or reason to know th defrauded out of three thousand five hundred dollars but i did not know the full extent of the fraud committed upon me until years later and it's not exactly notarial had done at that point but the fact of the matter is by her own statements she absolutely was aware that the notarial had taken her money and had not done what thirty years you so that he didn't do what treats beg them to do all right if that was so within the proper assumption be that he did nothing but in this case she did something right right harry agree but it is true i think that the court is interested in it is when she was aware that there was a problem with agree with that so the question that we have to decide that i think you know it starts off with our first question what did she do when she found out she had a problem i agree and that's assum that she didn't do anything what was working and maybe she didn't know it so late if she didn't know what a petition had been filed and nothing or no follow up not correct that's correct all right and because the asylum application she never showed up for the interviews and so on and so forth correct that was the night and then the petitioner said is correct that she did not know about that ok it's your position that she should have done something affirmatively with the nurse when she found out that the guy had stolen her money about it is when she found out what was going on and completely wintry know what it actually happened well the problem is that's not the law in this circuit and discretion in this case and i need a motion to reopen because the petitioner upon learning that there was a problem took no action for seven years after all the problem i'm having with supposed to do something to help her with the labor certification and her or her immigration issues she knew that she had problems with her immigration status she wasn't unaware that that case the petitioner knew something was wrong contacted the immigration court and was referred to the immigration legal aid groups that that could