as well as he was he went on vacation several of them to mexico in two thousand and two thousand and one the last time two thousand and eleven when he was detained at the border and several months later a notice to appear has been a has constructed do statue against its plain language against the purpose of the state to and has been inconsistent with their decisions so your view would be the clock starts running again when he comes back and yes why would that make sense if someone who stayed in the united states had been arrested and didn't choose to go on vacation come back come back would would there clark would  when the immigrants will come here they will use a lot of different procedural devices in order to extend their status and when they do that they kind of get become eligible for cancellation of any more they decided that should be never in fact they're never going to put that in the dock on the docket this notice to appear so it will go for ever and then they are saying that all because the notice the p r has been issued  that means that they will never be the picketing event has happened basically there is no way for the immigrants in these cases to delay their proceedings because there is no proceedings and the same thing has happened we just case there is no way for him to delay his proceedings because he didn't even know that those proceedings existed do you agree just on the jurisdictional point do you agree that the only thing before us is the denial of the motion to reconsider it's not we don't have jurisdiction over the october twenty fourth yesterday of course so it has to be and then to have jurisdiction to make any decision about the b is decision to deny reconsideration your your position is that there was a legal or constitutional error denying the reconsider if if it were a discretionary judgment on the part of the b to deny reconsideration is their jurisdiction in the court of appeals over that kind of decision no there won't be but this is not discretionary and we are talking about statutory  determination in this case if there is no part of questions e controlled substance violation and limits of courts just jurisdiction to legal and constitutional claims on top of the fact that this is a motion for reconsideration which looks to whether  on the government's condo in a case like this in which the government waits an inordinate amount of time before seeking removal louay you know a petitioner to which i agreed i mean the circumstances in this case i mean it's extremely unfortunate but and unfortunately the law is what the law is and there is no statute of limitations of the government there were other convictions that came up in that process that hadn't been relayed and and it wasn't an option i mean i full force presented the case to d h s s i've tried my best but you know again the facts are what the facts are in this particular case and it's incredibly unfortunate but it is what it is and comes down to you know did the board make an error and not oh yes yes yes mr isaac and i was already a numerous times it's gone through numerous times and unfortunately they've declined and at this point there is no other option with that so i mean it is it is incredibly unfortunate but you know it all comes down to jurisdictional issue there's the admitted in any status argument was never presented to the agency in the first instance to try to get that to come in on a motion to reconsider it says you can't do that there's case law within the circuit of regulations say that you know a motion to reconsider is not an opportunity to present an argument that could have been presented before so and it goes to the courts i mean the board's discretion when it says that you know you can't do this under regulations you can't have this new evidence and as i stated in the brief even if the court somehow saw an opportunity to look at it i mean