my name is liam mcdermott from angela bean and associates i'm representing the petitioners prosecution and also whether the petitioners request for a stay the voluntary departure period should be granted i'd like to begin with the voluntary departure issue this issue is particularly critical in this case because son that they will be able to which will allow them to reenter the country legally from peru now if this court rather actively applies a lot of cutting out to these clients they will be barred and at their age they're sixty seven period would not begin to run until after this court issued its decision has usually been put before the no it has not your honor because it was not been an issue again the phone heard there was never has been since persecution an objective basis for a well founded fear of persecution can be shown either by credible direct and specific evidence of a reasonable fear of persecution which is what this court found and limb threat as far as i know they did seize however he was also hiding and he took his entire family to his mother's house and he was actually out of the country for a large part of that time  perhaps the subject of component but objectively what reason do we have based on the record to believe that he would be threatened if he returned well and when this court held that there only threatened because he refused to use this shining path and in helping free those prisoners now there have been several incidents that he was involved with and in the past endeavors documents submitted to that's a fact that shiny five members were willing to horse course the best thing i've read in re read it and he keeps talking about well they said they wanted they asked me for information i call my didn't know anything where they say now we're going to shoot you down or now we're going to get  our position would be that there is nothing in the record that suggests that they went to the district director and asked for an extension of voluntary departure and the regulations specifically state that they can s that only from the district director and in this case they didn't do that they didn't seek to reopen even a late reopening so that issue would not be properly before the court  applied for an extension of the voluntary disk departure period while that period was still pending so in other words by the time they had sought the extension in this court that thirty days that the board had given them to voluntarily depart had not expired and so they acted with diligence in coming to this court and saying could you extend our voluntary departure periods that period hadn't run in this case the period had run  in passing they would tell me if they would tell me they would ask me for favors they would tell me watch out for your children however he didn't know who these individuals were on council this morning h indicated it was the shining path but i would submit to the record doesn't indicate that it's the shining path the record indicates that he said and i believe this is one on one and again of the record that they were just some bad if you have an alternate explanation i don't think there's any way that is in the record your honor but he didn't he also didn't into the record shows that he didn't know who they were very rarely do they cite and i'm so i'm from  time he was hiding out or was in the united states the record indicates that between one thousand nine hundred seventy and one thousand nine hundred four at that seven year period he was in the united states for approximately two years it would be the government's position that that was not a petitioner stopped driving an ambulance and he had another occupation which was driving a taxi and he didn't receive any of these threats they were related specifically to what he was doing and what information he was again they had no way of knowing that the law was going to change the voluntary departure period had not run when they filed their protection for reviews so there was they could not have asked for an extension there was no reason to and there was no order of removal long outstanding against them and so it wouldn't have made sense for them to file either a stay for removal or a mr the voluntary departure period it wasn't until this court an ounce nella him read the requirements that it became clear what was needed for petitioners to do and citizen children grandchildren and they're facing a ten year bar from re entering and being reunited with their family if the stay of the voluntary departure period is not granted as a practical matter and in other cases that we've had before this court this court has granted