the issue asylum i have read in support of our motion for the stay of the voluntary departure period if it please the court i would like to let my comments here this morning on the voluntary departure issue i think that's the  criteria you have to show that he has a claim that he will succeed on the underlying claim and that it will harm as far as irreparable harm your honor departure it is an important form of departure so that is irreparable harm because naturally he is barred for at least ten years from seeking adjustment of status for failing to depart during the period granted by the i a e a is and also we understand any other circuits that have ruled on this question you have your honor i have to admit i'm not positive i do know that for a long time the question was it was it was a question that was bandied about by the legal community what exactly was the court's jurisdiction on voluntary departure because it's an important form of belief and very importantly recently with the increased pace of here at the ninth circuit because of some situations these petitions are taking longer and decision in the on every case it would be that the petitioner may be on notice now to file the stay immediately because there is some some jurisprudence prior to that there really wasn't an answer that question so i don't believe that that by not telling the at the grant of voluntary departure for that period and that this more could then at the end of the proceedings if the court denied the the petitioners petition for any number of reasons could still institute or grant a thirty is whether the evidence in the case compels the conclusion that the that or any reasonable fact finder must find the requisite fear of persecution in this case i think it's fairly clear from the record that the petitioner didn't satisfy those standards or doesn't doesn't compel doesn't compel that conclusion because his testimony and his evidence was not credible there are many material misrepresentations inconsistent in possibilities that were cite that that that he that even under the l him re case that the petitioner wouldn't be allowed in this case in order to get that extension a voluntary departure let me start by asking the question i asked the other side and that is i know the first circuit allows for alcohol with what we've been calling at least sometimes they can't stay on her part or they even call it just a putting all of those i guess in the majority of cases i think that the government would certainly reserve the office would like to have the opportunity to oppose such a request in certain circumstances and i think that specifically but i do think that again the government wouldn't want such a system to be automatic if that's what you're well i'm not proud of america i'm after equitable noting that it had a corporal power to grant a stay for a voluntary departure or stay a voluntary departure and i think in this case it's not necessarily it's not but are there any questions about the merits or the any of the findings on the one thing that concerns me is the but the seeming unfairness of it and they having to select whether to appeal the case to our core or voluntarily depart which word of course given the right to come back and so for th with a case or or whether to depart as a separate option and i think in order to make it compelling if there is there are some reasons to leave it that way if that makes sense  choosing not to comply with the other voluntary order which you expected at the very beginning of proceedings with the immigration judge there are no further questions ok thank you thank you very much for your argument day or so after the and they show decision was received there may still not be a decision from the support possibly on whether or not that that was stated if the government is given an opportunity to argue on