house but the facts and the issue in the instant matter are very simple and very straightforward the facts simply are that the petitioner had car trouble and was late arriving in the court question yes i believe there is your honor and let me let me quote specifically and let me characterize the situation tensioner in his motion to reopen and the immigration court submitted i believe the court should your honor he states very specific specifically he's trying to do what he understands the impro perk as making a declaration under honor he says i am being truthful you know and a person with that doesn't understand the protocol of the court how is he going to make a declaration under i believe that qualifies as specifically as he possibly could thank you and his appeal essentially rests on two grounds first ground is petitioner contends that he's not required to show exceptional circumstances and as much as he's not challenging the portability portability is not being challenged exceptional circumstances is not an issue that's his first grounds for spawning contended that the petitioner failed to raise this issue and the administrat he does pacifically make an exceptional circumstances argument so we would assert that that should qualify as having brought this matter before second grounds and perhaps the more compelling grounds that a petition or asserts is that exceptional circumstances should not be an issue in any event because even though petitioner was late arriving at the that it would have resulted in anything to his benefit your honor i can only indicate from my personal experience and numerous numerous immigration hearings i've never seen a have given him the opportunity to present to present his case we did we did then what that's what i'm trying to find out what would he have accomplished by it there's nothing in the record that i can tell that shows intimately conversant with the specific with the specific allegations in the record but what i am suggesting to the court is that he would have been given the opportunity to present his evidence and have his day in court and that's what the immigration judge denied him saying you're not familiar with the merits of the case i can't i can't quote you verbatim right now i'm  you know i'm i'm not intimately acquainted i did not represent that the petitioner in the court and i did not go through and and memorized all relevant in this case for the two grounds that we've asserted however this case very dramatically dramatizes the what i consider to be the underlying the flaw in the underlying law  and and the underlying law does it focused on exceptional circumstances that being compelling circumstances and it ignores the more pertinent comment in the law which talks about being beyond the control of the alien the courts and the cases have all focused on the fact that park robins are not compelling circumstances but we've all had the experience of heart trouble we all know that largely our troubles are beyond beyond our control and therefore that's a very arbitrary  is the court has implied and as evidence from the record there is no obligation whatsoever in his motion to reopen or his motion is appealed to the board of any relief that he would have sought had even court there's no of application is that he he came here from mexico to work in the united states and he did not fear and he returned to mexico but what that does i found his town application that triggers the immigration proceedings so then he would be able to be put in if the court a while that allowed two hours away i think that would substantially undermine the efficiency of immigration courts well why isn't that a better reason the car broke down and you have to find the bus and get claims that the overheating was caused because he was stalled in traffic that's what he claims in his motion to reopen before the board and their motion to reopen for the immigration judge and on his appeal to the board because he was stalled in traffic that's why you were heated i can see where that was it was noted in the case it may be but in any event i think as i already stated that if he's making a due process claim the president should with a reason and he has a reason this isn't a carte blanche for stroll into court whenever you want but that fits within that fits within the innocence of proceedings because you can't reopen under exceptional circumstance hours after his hearing that he had received notice and and this court's case law says the traffic problems do not constitute exceptional circumstances an argument really is that one is rated wiggle room fifteen to twenty minutes but i think two hours or more would substantially undermine the efficiency of the immigration courts if they were permitted to show up whenever they whenever they could make it i think that would really disrupt how the judges cl failure to appear and the petitioner did not fail to appear the petitioner had problems but he overcame those problems and he appeared in court and that's the relevant if and so we can't characterize