deny the case i i don't know words that were to take it from there i wish i'd taken that fog of motion before that however i'm not sure the situation where whoever gets if the board is going to just close in some cases but not close in other cases then what standard is there for the board to for private counsel to know what's to close those cases then they enter the final order then those people can't repay for well take it back to the first up if that first step is arbitrary depends on well and willy nilly which cases are ministry were closed or not and that's an abuse of discretion you can't have that letter bar operates to to control or to rule over that foreign justice that former that we found is abuse of discretion you want to reserve any time for the new thank you very much good morning and i please the court my name is confidential i represent the attorney general the board of immigration appeals did not abuse its discretion in denying the petitioners motion to reconsider the board's denial of his earlier motion to reopen practice according to the proposed rule is that typically a case will be with paper if a petition or is otherwise eligible for relief in the form of cancellation of a movable under the standards of the new statute so because they don't meet that ten year period well they re paper because they don't meet the earlier seven year period or the old statute repapered gives a and when the opportunity to apply for relief from people under more favorable stand period he has less than six years under the stop time rule if the attorney general were to repapered his case the stop time will would not apply on the october third day that's that's correct however the proposed rule from the attorney general does say that a proceeding will not be reopened solely for the purpose of repapered that is in the background description of the proposed rule and the statute on top of that gives the attorney general the complete discretion to decide whether  he had made the motion before closure he would not repapered anyway that may be true your honor it would depend on him and i'm sorry it would depend on whether the board or the attorney general were to find that the petition could qualify for cancellation of removal under the new statutory standards he would have to show extreme hardship he would have to show good moral character he would also have to show a continuous period of residence of ten years let him feed i made a motion earlier when seve under circumstances in which he would qualify for cancellation of removal that would be a decision to be made by the board in the first instance and the board did not make that decision because no motion was ever made before the board i'm not understanding your statement  still need to repair but if the stop time rule under the old statute ended the clock before the ten year period under the statutory standard which is section three zero nine c three of the illegal immigrant performing of the responsibility act as amended have to meet the requirements for cancellation of removal for the attorney general the exercises discretion to review have or to make sure i think i have the same question as you still have you have to meet a longer time period but you're not hampered by the stop time rules  you not hampered by the stop time rule as it applies to in order to show cause there may be a crime that you commit the right involving stop time or that you got a service in the document but the service of the order to show cause will not stop the clock that's correct so the board's decision not to reopen the proceedings therefore cannot be deemed an error of fact or law and that is really the only issue before this court because he did not appeal the earlier denial of the motion to reopen nor did he appeal the earlier the you if i may just just in briefly the immigration service the opportunity to terminate those proceedings which were deportation proceedings he and institute removal proceedings under which the new cancellation fernand of a permit reasons that's the ten years they will be required because what the government will do when it repay prisoners terminate the okra sittings which are before taken proceedings and institute new proceedings which are removal proceedings and thereby the the alien would be under the new