question for you involving extraordinary circumstances within the equitable toing doctrine that this court has written about before most recently in the chico case in the truman case there are three well known eyesight his hearing is bad if you realize on third parties to tell him about communications from the v a when it comes to extraordinary circumstances he has me or comes a lot later extraordinary circumstance and when we talk about equitable tolling there are three zero minutes is there an extraordinary circumstance was the veteran diligent and did that extraordinary circumstance cause the delay because here mr palmar was at a time by thirteen days well we know from looking at the pattern of meowing in between the philippines and the united states in mr po clearly a factor when you look at diligence you look at diligence during the time period of the extraordinary circumstance so we're talking about their two to three week time period when the mail you don't talk about diligence for the remaining three months that's exactly what this court held in chicago when it adopted the stop clock methodology inevitable tony cases and that's exactly where the scorn the appellant's legal test is what is the legal standard you are asking us to apply the question well how would you phrase your position with respect to a legal question that we have to his circumstances that's a legal question there's also a legal question as to whether given the filipina veteran at what he compensation fund acted so where veterans are literally dying there were very few filipino states right correct and that's a third legal question your honor where the statute itself only when it comes to mailing only tonks about domestic mail can equitable toing still provide relief and should at least minutes where the questioners international miaowing so it was never addressed in the mail on sunday what would be the way you would advocate that we treat the international mail ed x number of days or question the what is the legal task you you want us to say here's where that c b c went wrong because they didn't apply the following legal standard you want us to say they should have said the days start o you should have added the average number of days that it takes to get to the focus which was which is the test you want to i believe that the court should start the period should or three weeks and average two we scamp when they get a communication from the viet the best we can do is look at the pattern of mail and in this case a pattern of mailing shows that there is a delay between the mayo from the united states to the philippines which the c d c did recognize it just so in she go when there was a homeless veteran this court review that and said that there was jurisdiction and got into the issues of whether or not the three most diligent what the standard for diligence similarly we need to look at in court does not describe what diligence is required of mr powell marvet i respectfully submit that there is plenty of diligence here there is nothing you can do in that two three week time period to make the ma would think that maybe he didn't understand it or maybe he was incapable of reading it but to say that he was diligent because there was no way he could reasonably be expected to understand that he had one hundred twenty days i don't know how aboard the the  eight could get any clearer about one hundred twenty a period well and we don't challenge the content of the notice on appeal here in iran or so but if you're sitting in the philippines and you're older and somebody is reading it to you i can understand his statement when he says i have no idea that i have to file it within one hundred twenty days he is hearing that orally so i accept his statement but that is not the basis of our appeal here you know on our peel as there is an extraordinary circumstance is international mailing there's no question it's two to three weeks later he was diligent when you look at that two to three time two week time period and you look at what he told the court i try very hard i'm not always able to respond because of my age i'm already ninety one my eyes and my sense of hearing have deteriorated i'm reading from day thirty nine i have to ask somebody to assist me to write my letter and file my appeal he's as diligently as he can be and he can't make the money fast but if if he has wouldn't you be making exactly the same argument if he had not gotten around to sending this letter for another month the most of the request reconsideration it would apply believe it to be a top or argument because we wouldn't have the  extraordinary circumstance of the delayed mail that is the extraordinary circumstances completely out of his control so he was two hundred days late as opposed to one hundred thirty three days late that's a tough argument for us your hon agree so respectfully and i'm happy to answer any questions you should be on early we believe this court set the analysis out perfectly straight and check out is there an extraordinary circumstance was a veteran diligent during that time period of the extraordinary circumstance and his or causation and respectfully we believe that each of those elements has been math here and accordingly the fourth of appeals for veterans claims decisions must we need to go beyond simply saying you're you're you're older firm that that that has been tied to an inability to take care of one's legal affairs in a timely manner as opposed to physical   this is just an allegation without specific with respect to the main argument that mr connor makes on an appeal and i think the only one that we would consider to be within the court's jurisdiction lead to the anomaly that a claimant living in hawaii would have the time period for filing a notice of appeal start from the date of mailing the board decision whereas someone living in toronto would get the benefit  of the date of receipt which again we're still going to have to rely on the veteran or the claimant to come forward and say what date was but it i think i don't think that that's a standard that the court should be adopting i think particularly in light of actual ruling of the board and the filing of the request for reconsideration is it clear to you and i don't think that that's governed by statute seems to me the statute only covers the period for filing notice of the board's decision had arrived in wherever someone is at then doing something where would you say in that situation that the equitable tolling would almost certainly apply get on the hundred twenty fifth day and you're not the same as the person in that situation is barred from people like you know i think they would have to come forward with facts explaining the circumstances of when they received their that the notice and how that that was that we get closer to an extraordinary circumstance than this is just the normal time it takes for me out to be delivered and two weeks is not necessary in about itself an extraordinary time period considering you know when i take  get to arizona or california why which the congress didn't specifically have in mind and chose not to change the time period from which rather to include the time it takes for mail to be received within make in response with respect to the statute being amended to allow for the postmark job high on the way back and that therefore we shouldn't worry about how long it takes mail to get  amended statute also with respect to council's view that the filipino veteran at the compensation fund what's to title thirty eight and directs us to title thirty eight is a huge section it includes everything from how to file a claim to you how to file a notice of appeal there's a lot of stuff in there so i don't think congress really focused in on the mailing issue when they passed th reparations act in two thousand and nine which is buried in the middle of the stimulus package in two thousand and nine senator in a way actually finally after decades of filipino allotting organization was successful enough to get  reparations so it's in the middle of this huge legislation and i just don't believe that when congress said let's make sure we look at title thirty eight to they meant to say international mailing is now suddenly included in seventy to sixty cents finally your honor the new legal standard i think that should be considered in addition to the others that are in our briefers why should an equitable towing be applied when you have someone who's over ninety hard of hearing firms that they can't see relies on a third person isn't that incapable of handling a fair sum perhaps we need to broaden the legal standard that applies in those situations when it comes to saying there is no better case for equitable towing we have a ninety two year old filipino soldier served in world war two as a guerrilla his eyesight failing he can't hear you need somebody to explain t