apply for work permits from one thousand nine hundred ninety one until the present right well that's you know i mean obviously your client has a little bit of responsibility in this that he didn't show up at a hearing that he knew about and that they said but the court so many when it's they said well you don't have jurisdiction because you're in court proceedings and so now they're going to give him that hearing now and the fact that he has a deportation order interview and they do grant the asylum that would not take care of the deportation order and i don't think they would have jurisdiction to grant that asylum so he still has he would  words in the motion to reopen to the immigration judge and then in the in my motion to reopen to the b i a my very first paragraph says that i am including all of the arguments that were laid out below to the immigration judge so you think the words i can understanding of what the government is arguing with respect to equitable tolling is that we didn't raise the equitable stoppel that was my understanding of their their brief and that the i a e a doesn't have jurisdiction to was happening at the time of the a p c settlement it was approved in january of ninety one but it was settled in late one nine hundred ninety and initially the court approved a settlement in december but by the time of his hearing it advertisement and this is the language right out of the a b c settlement your deportation case will be starts during the time of your a b c asylum interview and decision that was all over the news especially in los angeles where he lives because of the a d c settlement and applying for the a b c registration he believes that the service had his current address one would think that the same mind agency would be two different departments running and talking to but in fact because of the outstanding order he should not have been allowed to pursue those remedies without addressing the outstanding order so at some point in time normally the years in granting work authorization exactly that's exactly my point which shouldn't have happened because if at any time they had sent a notice of intent to deny work permit and said you need to address this underlying order before we can go forward on this case that would have given him the notice that he needed in order to file a motion to reopen and an in order not to miss the statutory deadline for a new car at motion to reopen in one thousand nine hundred eight so there was they never ever raised an issue in fourteen years to this day he has a valid work permit and to this day we're still on two tracks we're still getting asylum interview that there isn't any first action or indicated to me that she wasn't sure whether he wanted to pursue that relief at this time while she thought he was going to list might he think that might be a good idea that's a possibility around i mean you know that's that you know sometimes people need to see the eyes of the affirming saying that you know they didn't because that's the standard of review for the mo matter but it allows him an opportunity to you know i'm not telling you what to do but yes i'm telling you abuse of discretion is a tough standard and i have concerns about his ability to show d them from doing certain things and the government's interest would be not having bad law and jealous since in this issue to make this work out your interest would be to know that if you get assigned on that then if there are concerns about that law that