but both these provisions are found within the same statute and i think that the same should apply in that the courts capable of reaching there when you're traveling deadline question in this case or the ready oh you're your grounds here is enters the country the law provides for two different exceptions to the rule whether or not there's an extraordinary circumstance or a change circumstance maintaining office to this is an example that's listed in the regulations as an extraordinary circumstance have to still file within a year after it comes into the country i'm not sure yet then he does not have to file within the first year he can file as long as he's maintaining that lawful status then the regulations also allow for a reasonable fear to time once you status considering the circumstances to whether or not the government can consider his application for asylum is there anything to prevent him for filing for both in other words petitioning for asylum applying for asylum at the same time he standard review to apply to these kinds of questions because of the jurisdiction change there's been very little case law either at the board of immigrations or at any court of appeals level regarding the one you're filing deadline let me ask you what occurs to me  question and that is was there a case law saying that for filing the mere filing request for an extension of temporary status told the one year statute no you are not that i'm aware  think is recognition by the government that individuals who have pending applications have certain expectations of what the law would provide for i think in this situation it's honest mistake you believe that he is a visitor status could have been extended and that he could have been continued to  i think that the judge's decision regarding asylum consideration when i hear the established well founded fear was also fundamentally flawed for a number of different reasons the judge primarily made two findings in that regard and so i could was politically active who was killed on the premises of a political organization and i think this very activities demonstrate the incompetence and corruption of the emmy's government and he was killed in a manner regarding a political assassination ground and that's what we're looking at here there isn't a direct statement to mr ickes that he should stop his political activities and what it is is the whole context of his experiences and the warnings and threats that we see if that show that he is fears are connected to  in yemen who had high level connections was a friend of the family and i think you know only want him because he was a friend of the family that he's you know activities for causing him problems and that he should leave and not come back so there i think this is evidence well i should address jurisdiction first the court's jurisdiction remains limited over the finding that this was an untimely asylum application in in this case the government's brief was before the ramadan case final there have actually been i believe some inquiries made to our often to my office about further hearing in that case but until that is done ramadan is still out there than say that the government's brief somehow anticipates ramadan becomes this is basically this the court is clear under the real i d act this court can address legal questions what legal and constitutional questions are the questions that are dealt with here whether extraordinary circumstances are shown are discretionary determination at each time this court has reviewed extraordinary circumstances in other contexts the court the courts of generally found this to be a discretionary type of determination the government would agree that if finding of the of the exception to the timeliness requirement that the court said is more of a fact and law question which the court can review as as a next question of law in fact this is entirely different extraordinary circumstances the finding of what constitutes a good faith marriage is something that has legal standards that the court can review and therefore the court did review those standards extraordinary circumstances finding however is or legal determination but in any event it's really unnecessary for the courts we can get to that provided that the court finds that the finding there was no withholding of removal stans as counsel pointed out the immigration judge disposed of the case by applying the asylum standards this can be done because withholding has a higher requirement than asylum so if one fails to meet the lower threshold then they feel to meet the higher threshold here the u s immigration jurisdictional question but that brings us to the asylum finding made by the immigration judge first with regard to past persecution the record does not compel a conclusion contrary to that made by the immigration judge it is clear the testimony states because the brother was the head of the household in the street he admitted that it's up to the head of the household to make that type of inquiry so the brother may have been upset that he was going around him and that's why the brother said you're you're digging your own grave but path persecution that there was no well founded fear of persecution and that any persecution was not shown to be on account of one of the protected grounds so for any of those through for those three reasons substantial evidence stance to support the immigration  deny the petition for a view now with regard to as persecution there was simply no harm and thus no serious outright threat made against them therefore we've now turned to the question of the well founded fear and in this particular case again at best there was a vague finally to the third ground the immigration judge found which was that there was no showing that any of this was on account of any particular protected ground now in this case again mr hockey admitted that he was not a member of the same party that his is killed cousin was a member of and that he was not really actively involved in that and admitted that he was not persecuted because of his cousin and those that's what rather because of the inquiries he made but again there was no showing of any interest in him on that regard  he never had direct contact with the government in that regard it was always fairly through intermediate intermediaries that he made inquiries and never quite got a specific answer from anybody now i see that i'm running out of time but i believe that i've run through most of my major points if the court has no further questions i don't see any then massimo thank you thank mama that in this case substantial evidence supports the immigrations judge's findings that there was no for the court to make that finding in as much as the immigration judge me denied withholding on the basis of innocence of asylum grounds therefore the courts tonight petition for review thank you much thank you for your  analysis because she didn't do any kind of individual ised analysis of the terms of the regulation for what constitutes an extraneous circumstance she has repeated over and over again at several points during the proceedings that extension application does not confer