she's eligible to apply for it even though we are a few links from the denial of a motion to reopen originally based on a good faith marriage obviously the correct remedy in this case would not be for her to go back to were abusive husband because there has been this intermittent determination that she's eligible to apply under valid her relief we're asking for this court to intervene and one of two ways up first with an instruction to we open so that miss montana can go that actually we filed a motion for a temporary stay a proceedings here so that maybe we could file a motion to reopen under valid but it was clear from from the government and in fact if you look at the practical consequences in this case if for example the court were to lean and without any instruction whatsoever before that the i say it is quite not only possible but it's quite probable that the government will government throws up and then finding non reviewable discretionary basis for refusing to reopen the case because it didn't have any instruction from this court mr montana is one bite at the apple she's given one chance to please the court and good morning your honors my name is john roberts and i'm here on behalf of the respondent attorney general this matter i want to clarify some of the things that my colleague over here talked about during the course his argument because all right so one of the remedies we often do is we deny a petition but we stay the mandate to give the petitioner opportunity to move before the board to reopen and i do no we do know that those petitions to reopen will turn enormously on whether or not the government opposes or not so that's what you what in order to give this victim of circumstances a shot along with the h s to evaluate it what would you recommend in this case ok well let me let me let me answer that question just one second they've had a long time to exult i don't want to hear about long time just particular nobody's relieving you all for being here i'd just like to know how we resolve it well i mean i can't put it help us to ask you to sit down with you the two counsel in this room sit down with  you're not who knows your client well overly i'm just trying to find out what we what you think we have the ability to do to facilitate whatever might productive come out of this today well worked out with a mediator help in those respects i think that depends on what you mean by work out in my rooms of if i want something with the board and exhausting the remedies i mean they've had an opportunity to do that for well over a year now i mean ok  so your position is that we should deny the petition issue the mandate and what happens this you have any under those circumstances as you have any remedy on the floor petition after that oh yes you can willing to try and find a way to at least test test whether or not a petitioner has a chance of staying in the united states or not that's true honor but the government does that when the petition is shows an interest in you know how to apply  and the other side i shouts to try to work it out or for them to file before the board nobody's talking about mandates at this point ok another therefore is the spending of for a defined point of time for a limited amount of time i i would i would say that it's worthless up of a short stay would be appropriate but i mean we have to have some sort of indication by the petition that something is going to be done here i mean there's been no action for so long we're hearing your complaints  against women act the voluntary departure bar would apply because there are there are measures within that particular petition which gets rid of that bar so it's really not too much of an issue in this case but ultimately that's something that the board would have to  e and that's why i have to go before the agency i want to clarify something here you know you know this is almost a little strictly legal point saying that they have to follow the most real and that this court doesn't have authority to remain because there's no jurisdiction but it's not just six you not the first case we have before us on immigration law we do try to cut through the not to make light of this but you have to understand that we see a lot of these cases now and from time to time and the nicer it has been open with us with the h s and its program that at times there are cases where the circumstances call out for some kind of way to accommodate some resolution we don't know within a particular case that's the right one but the only way we have a conversation with you all about it is that oral argument because the briefs don't address it so you know whatever comes from the bench is trying to address the issues that are percolating in our minds it doesn't mean we've decided the case and we don't even talk to each other before the case comes on for argument so we just need to know what it is what you're thinking is your informing us you're giving us information ok now so you have a few minutes you consequence given the government's position through this case is that they said we don't actually think that the bom motion to reopen is going to succeed so unless we get some actual assurance from the government that they're actually going to join simply throwing us back to where the guy with the