as the board is aware from the briefs the government and the media first slightly in terms of formulation of the issue before this court but i don't think there's any dispute that the ultimate practical question here is whether ms and also will be able to remain in the united states with her husband a naturalized citizen and her two children jennifer and natalie fourteen and sixteen both of whom are citizens who were born here think the government has argued that the appropriate standard for this court to apply in reviewing the decision is an abuse of discretion standard and we've argued in our brief and i contend that the appropriate review there is no dispute in fact from a technical standpoint the requester we opened in is below those immigration proceedings to seek relief under the legal immigration and order but my understanding of the record is the reason that final and his order to ending timely appeal from the prior denial of a motion well i'm not sure i don't know what would have happened if you would have asked the f b i for a leave the statute seems to indicate relief that you thought integration court i think that her party also made clear to the b i by saying that the appeal was being dismissed in order with the case to be returned him a gratian court to seek relief that it was an attempt to comply with the very narrow timing requirements of the like that and that's why we believe the docking a substantial compliance comes motion yes your honor and i am glad you brought that up because that was mentioned in the b i a decision many again in the government's brief for this report a reference to the fact that there are these procedures and i was very disturbed by that because when i was appointed to handle this case i saw to handle the appeal in this matter i raised that issue with him pointing out that clearly given the equities of this case given the personal situation of his but also it was a case that cried out for me or to me that he didn't need to be litigated and the story part of response to me and obviously i'm paraphrasing but i think that's just some of what happened there you know i think we're familiar with generally with gratian court proceeds i think that there has been a lot of complexity added by the transition for relief and your telephone or something going on back there if there is some noise please turn off whatever it is you wait what what kind of relief is available for petitioner in this case thought you know in the service is bound up five thousand because that's the only legal way right now for her to do this it doesn't bother her having to go back to our country and apply for the visa there i mean not following that there certainly creates a real problem with the family i mean if if in fact she can't get back for ten years what's that for the family and that i know that you're here to argue the technicalities to the appeal and i understand that it's just that frankly it took me a long time to try to figure out the all of the various time limits and so forth and this seems to be one where the technicalities of the procedure were such that i can understand how anyone would miss some other time line law school hard many cases make bad law and frankly really have to hold your nose too to come to the result that just doggedly following the pole of this path would get us to and that's when you get bad one point i'd like to address on the bottle is the response in the government's brethen also here today by mr o'connor that the dr in the stance of substantial compliance should not be applied here because in effect congress knew how to create exceptions and didn't create exceptions for people in this bill of those category clearly the exceptions that congress created as it were for his were for people from a particular country a particular class of people identifiable by their country of origin that's simply not the situation is below so easy and we're not arguing that if you comes out of the dock a substantial compliance because there's something unique about her having been a peruvian descent the issue here was this unique procedural quandary where she was in cryer adverse decision was on appeal and likely would have remained on appeal through even the extended deadline for applying for relief under the light that i think it's clear if you look at the the motion to voluntarily dismiss her appeal so that the case may be remanded to the immigration court to what was going on was an attempt to deal with a very troubling procedural quandary in which she found herself and part as a mayor may not have made the best decision but i think it was a it is that it was made in a very difficult and confusing situation and it's simply not reasonable to suggest that people in this below so it's category i don't know that there's anyone else who is in the category in which she found herself so the notion that time you need to talk to your client i would say he's right now ok we'll put some reasonable deadline in there for another finest as to whether or not you'd like to participate in the mediation program and perhaps you can see