circumstance change how do you get around the fact that they found that your client had not demonstrated due diligence which is requisite for equitable calling and that's fairly construed to be i a s opinion adopted that find it so isn't isn't a lack of due diligence itself irrespective of the issue you're discussing more than a sufficient reason to u diagnosed with m it was just order but beyond that what evidence was there about how that would have affected him and his ability to understand a change in the law or react to it the responded to stay when he st learned about lopez and randomness not list what efforts he undertook to rectify the issues he now raises with respect to his removal proceedings so other than providing the diagnosis he emptied the diagnosis what else was there in the record presented to the i it took to rectify the issues he now raises and thus he act diligently these symptoms of m d d how did they address that issue just because he has these symptoms how does that go to exactly what the  a as opposed to the notes of a mental health provider and a generalized diagnosis from two thousand and eleven why wasn't it your burden you know order to demonstrate these extraordinary circumstances are and the due diligence to present that kind of specific reason motion to reopen was filed so many years after the deadline had passed and judge properly declined to equitably told the deadline by over eighteen years and properly denied the motion to reopen his  here the two cases or nearly identical in a lot of the court was permitted to look at both agency decisions to infer that the the board's equitable tolling denial in this particular case implicitly includes the immigration judges explicit finding that petitioner lacked due diligence but what does it in the board's decision that you think imply lack of diligence was one of the basis on which the workers are lying well by for there's nothing specific in the board's decision it's all linking equitable the the variables in the not so so where they say anything about the development but they didn't say anything about the due diligence analysis but in light of law that's less important because in a lot of the same exact thing happened the board just denied it as a time when the court then looked at both agency decisions cumulatively and said you know what this the on timeliness finding also implicitly includes the the explicit finding that there was no two diligence the court went one step further and said you know what the court has the authority on its own accord to determine or whether petitioner had satisfied the due diligence component that precedent lays out the pathway to deciding this particular case when we look at it even if the petitioner here can rely on law as precedent and pursue equitable tolling based on a change of law it doesn't automatically diligence there's no record evidence that the petitioner set forth both in his opening brief and his reply brief to show what steps he pursued his claim between read the rendon finding in tw did enough to adopt the a i j is finding with your answer to judge miller's question that you disagreed with with my view on that and that you were saying to judge miller that you didn't think the the i a did anything in their decision to be read as in any way adopting the i j a is due diligence finding is that seems to me to be what you may have been saying but i want to make of the equitable tolling denial also included the the due diligence finding and it doesn't abrogate the petitioners obligation to set the set forth some some evidence work evidence as the moving portably as to what steps he took to satisfy the due diligence component a component so to answer the court's question the board did make a bifurcated finding when it came up with it with regard to a lot of irrespective of the court is permitted to look at both agency decisions as it did in a lot of to determine whether or not both of those components  address the due diligence component component and at all can i ask it isn't it in your view that in general we get to look past what the more you know  left the door open in this particular case since the two are nearly identical it's important to keep in mind that equitable tolling has twenty two components to that equation and in the circumstance where the language of the board has adopted some of the explicit findings of the i j a it opens the door throughline a to be able to consider both agencies  this particular case yes but as a broad rule the best i can do is say that it depends on on the language of the particular case and the bottom line here because it's very  account so that a number of contacts like for example if the if the i j finds for reasons to find a petition are not credible and the b i only discusses two of them  were limited to those who write yes yes and no because i once again it depends on the language of the board's decision google can provide us with guidance of taxing in both agencies the decisions you talk about adverse credibility that in that particular example if you have the i g makes an adverse credibility finding based on eighty eight dollars inconsistency used and the board affirms the overall adverse credibility finding but goes on to talk about three of them it goes up to the court and then the court decides that the three might have been trivial let's say for example as a lot of said it's and  and footnote seven it's pointless to remand it back to the board when it's pretty clear by the record of both agencies this agency is decisions that the board will simply adopt the five additional explicit the suppose i think that the best reading of the words is there isn't it is that it addressed only the idea that a change in law can support all i mean that it did not incorporate deliverance binding how is it consistent with s whether he gets a nd chance or cancellation now it's important to keep in mind that he's still removable on the possession of controlled substance charge but we look at it at the at the very end of the day when we look at both agency decisions together if the court were to remain and there's really two issues that would be in front of the board due diligence and cancellation and there's enough language in both the board and the i g his decision to as the court provide some record evidence of what action he took to pursue his claim between twenty million one hundred and forty two thousand and eighteen when he filed the motion remained and he never actually explicitly says the most important piece of evidence when he found out about the change the law now looking at the cancellation of removal removal which is the only relief that he's pursuing right now it's it's clear by both the board's language and enough on on page five of the record and three can troy position convictions two convictions for drug paraphernalia possession one burglary put a conviction one theft conviction one public intoxication conviction one open container  indication from the record how the agency would handle the issues that are before us the due diligence and ultimately the cancellation in approaching and remained to get back to that so to make a decision o mental illness there's no record evidence that there was any mental incapacity prior to two thousand and eleven so mental illness is not it is not applicable in this particular but in this particular case you're on our see that my time is up  history thank you thank you thank you counsel ms alexander when you're ready however there was pretty good evidence before that immigration judge in two thousand a