the sole reason that my client was in proceedings before the immigration courts was fraud is noted in the record in two thousand and two my client sought the services of like going to punish immigration services subsequently to that action has become known that this service had a reputation for filing thousands of unsupported asylum applications on behalf of unknowing clients as noted in the record in march two thousand and three the service raided by the authorities in orange county and was described at that time as one of the largest immigration organized immigration fraud rings is the only damage from that faulty address no your hon this whole case emanates from a fraudulent asylum claim filed on this we have found i can understand if a court is somewhat incredulous that how this person not know what was being followed his behalf but as we've learned this service had a reputation for doing this but he requested a change in the asylum hearing that's the question or that i can't answer because he didn't put anything to that his declaration i can only assume that there was something filed by this immigration service because the immigrate the preparers name address are on the applications as well in addition to my client's incorrectly mattress i did notice they are over and he's never are like lights never admitted that he filed it or that that see it it's in his denial of the motion to reopen without having granted a hearing is that the another bit here is that there was except there are exceptional circumstances in that he did he deny the motion provided a hearing before making that finding if he has a hearing and finds that your guy's not going to truth that's a different story that he makes and that he makes an average credibility by based on testimony so we had to pinpoint exactly what the i j a should have done here is that he shouldn't have doesn't disallow the declaration he should've said it for hearing that would've been part of the one he should just what everything aside he should have taken a hearing he would have learned possibly more evidence about this service is that seems to be the j's skepticism thousands of victims services yesterday that's one element procedurally should even afford a full hearing so if you if you win today we should send it back to the idea to go have a hearing about why  government states that the items where we target they were just sent first class mail allowed they weren't sent registered as sort of i but it is testimony that he didn't receive them at that address which was incorrect not granted that was the address of record secondary the primary issue is that my client wouldn't be in this position but for the fraud of this now convicted immigration service as we find of the exceptional circumstances warrant thing the granting of a motion reopen also the rest of my time list of questions first regarding the exceptional circumstances as you heard petitioners counsel say today and as you see in the briefing to the i j a and that the only issue that the petitioner is raising is exceptional circumstances under eight u s c one t if he's got the goods that the people who are helping him are really defrauding him why wouldn't it be an exceptional circumstance exceptional circumstances to find in the statute or something beyond the control of the alien to give some specific examples acute things that happened to the petition beyond his control now this case is not something that's beyond the control of the alien it was his decision to go to the notary it was his decision to sign under penalty of perjury that he signed i for obligation for asylum it was circumstance has to show he would be eligible for the underlining if your cancellation that requires three things one in that in the united states for ten years be a good moral character and also exceptional or extremely unusual you quite a bit of evidence is obtained via testimony and also the call note that the immigration judge didn't make any comment on the immigration service in orange county and but for that occasion my client would be eligible to apply for cancellation and i just want to end my comments on a quote from this court i think a case decided after for the direction where you were you thinking of