governs the error that was of concern to to my client and that is it's actually to the regulation that regarding the one year filing deadline for asylum that a change of law constitute change circumstances this was raised during the merits hearing by my client's attorney at the time pointing specifically to the development of case l and in fact i would go so far to argue that the the board's looking now at the very first the first page or decision of the picture of the record timeliness issue that the two issues raised on appeal went to the substance of the asylum claim which the board wouldn't get to unless you could overcome or your client could overcome  one of the rationales for the exhaustion doctrine is agency expertise the idea that the agency should have a crack at exploring a red heard and bringing its expertise to bear now that the government point for a four i b changes its changes in the applicant circumstances that material affect the applicant's eligibility for asylum including changes in applicable u s law i would argue that the changes in this circuit's handling of future fear of course of family planning cases is in fact a change in the law and that's exactly the point that council was making blow to the board and if the board really does have this expertise which it does i would think that a mention of the i g s clear error and failing to address the well founded fear of a future persecution based was a problem with how the r j handled the one year issue so i would respectfully argue that notwithstanding the government's exhaustion argument that this this issue was w anything that there was a actually a service appeal of a grant of withholding removal there was no appeal of any issue so to suggest that that somehow supports this i would say very vague notion of meaning meaningful meaningful challenge is it's just unclear in me and maybe it's disingenuous i don't know but it just it certainly doesn't support the government's position that this issue was exhausted and that given the i chase error in failing to apply the rationally applied this the the  standard for change of circumstances could be applied and i think they would have to be fact finding that fact finding in the context of the asylum context rather than rather than withholding good morning may it please the court lisa moore nellie on behalf of the attorney general the court should deny this petition for review because only raises an argument that she did not exhaust before the board of immigration appeals in her brief to the board did not argue that her asylum application was timely filed or that she qualified for an exception to the one year piling deadline because she failed to raise the issue the board deemed that issue now before this court churns only argument is that she qualified for an exception to the one year filing deadline this court has repeatedly held that nap of can't like chen must exhaust all administrative remedies for raising an issue in this court the court were to review the one year issue it would have to speculate about which arguments chen might have raised to the board as as well as whether the board accepted those arguments just just to reiterate that