absentia removal order issued by the immigration court here in los angeles i think it's important to understand from the position of the record itself that during all times relevant up until the removal order was issued mrs tyro who doesn't speak english was assisted by her son in law  who handled everything for her she resides in salt lake city utah she and her husband had been admitted to the u s as visitors a christian that application was filed about two weeks after she and her husband had been in the u s for one year and two weeks after the expiration of their authorized day this resulted in a automatic referral of the asylum application to the immigration court which is what has initiated this whole problem for the tyro family in the meantime  only child her daughter became a u s citizen and she resides in utah with her u s citizen daughter son in law and u s citizen grandchildren at that time she also resided there with know that i've seen this in the record i have a quote what he told her at the first here and he very clearly told her what she had to do if she wanted a change of venue very specifically and i gave her the documents that would say that's what he did she says well i listened to somebody in utah who said y do on the record and made it very very clear in fact that you know this change of venue is a difficult thing to do you better get an attorney that such as any thore and when she's got that directly from the i j a that some other person in the billion of those cases if we're talking about the case i think we're talking that's a little different in that that's a case where the the why didn't i think when they were asking to get decent application they get it they come driving like mad to come to the court on time and they fouled up it was one o'clock instead of eleven o'clock but there's no question they were trying their best to get to court on time and now i realize her affidavit is what i didn't understand when i was told i wasn't given the right papers but i don't know that we have to accept that affidavit against what the records show so where do we go with that if not these things it's this is a difficult case procedurally your honor it's obviously the as i was explaining the counsel for the government this is the argument for having a lawyer when you in october but it handled everything for her who had basically taken her under his wing and was assisting her in this whole process they relied on the specific representations  made by the immigration service in salt lake city and in salt lake city unlike los angeles they everything's right there at least that that time the immigration court the enforcement division and the benefits division are all in the same office you all went to the same window so they thought they were talking to the official representative of the court and that court had in fact advised her to appear at the hearing which she was very concerned about and that's why they went it's something else you're being beat up by your spouse or something you know but that's how exceptional has to be how what makes her not paying attention with the idea is that i'm listening to the other people as exceptional and serious illness or death well i think it's different from not paying attention to what the i j a said i think it's beyond that she did pay attention to what the i g said and that's what caused her to go to the russian service in salt lake city to clarify this because this is who they had dealt with they had this case pending she the hearing was in english she speaks russian it was translated the term change of venue is subject to many interpretations i included in the affidavit and the material that i submitted a with regard to that she acted pro se throughout she acted with good faith throughout her husband was she wanted to be i didn't file an application for just on the status correct and that's one of the things they require i think if she did not she file the adjustment of status application with the immigration service which they accepted she didn't understand or nor did they understand they had no jurisdiction that was returned to me this is outside the record as well but that was returned to me in may of last year when i got involved in the case they found the adjustment of status i have it in my pile of papers here it was not submitted because the issue before the the i am the immigration judge in the of censure matter is whether or not there were compelling reasons she did not appear at the initial a was correct in not reopening this case and that the reason why that's the case is because the petitioner here didn't present the exceptional circumstances that are required by statute in order to reopen this matter the statute talk reasonable to rely on now if it were the case that let's say i j said nothing about what procedurally the petitioner had to do or the i j a affirmatively met misled the petitioner that would be a different story than merely walking up to you a clerk that i'm struggling with there's nothing as far as specially for a layperson there's nothing inherently unbelievable that things can change the i g tells her one thing and then later someone tells her something else why can't someone credit that as being a change in the law it doesn't have the second information was wrong but from the point of view of the listener i don't understand why why that is any different than not having been told something in the first place to go in and check and see this is the way it's done and i'm told now we're here for the reasons articulated and sing but all i think it's unreasonable for petitioner to rely on somebody in the ins office in salt lake city who's giving advice that's contrary like directly contrary to what the i j a himself told her that's contrary to the forms that the i j a presented to her and not that involve a person who has in that potential stand varying circumstances in the last say six months the government has sometimes been willing to entertain  true in this particular case though right now i can say that we are not willing to mediate this case it is a procedural default effectively and i will certainly take this panel's concerns back and perhaps the government's position and i would like to point out that in this court's cases dealing with these situations such as saying one of these occasions been approved there's always been something more to go along with that that approves of addition and it can be summed up in the word diligence in saying the court emphasized that the petitioner there had been present for every hearing i think five in total he had been diligently pursuing his claim for a number of years and he missed the final hearing by only a couple of hours he was actually present at the courtroom choudhury yes seventh circuit case again the petition was actually present in the courtroom at the time of the hearing and that compares this favorably to this case where regardless of whether the petitioner was actually notified that her i want three was approved or not there's nothing in the record indicating that she she wasn't aside from from her own statement but the fact is that that petition languished for year and a half and it was there was absolutely no follow up at all in determin whether that petition had been approved there was no follow up before the second hearing to present that to the the i g in the first instance there was no follow up to present that to the i j a in the reopening there was no follow up until two days before the the  to present that to the v a on appeal and this court made clear in hernandez view this which involved a change of venue motion that the petitioner bears the burden of following up in those circumstances the petitioner bears some responsibility for being diligent in pursuing these claims that the i a e a could not have considered for reasons that we present in our brief the v a could not consider that material in the first instance and we would argue that it would have been improper for the i g to consider that material as well for those reasons government which is assuming without necessarily deciding obviously at this point that there weren't any holding in your client's favor what do you think the proper remedy would be i believe the proper remedy your honor should be to compel a reopening of the removal proceedings itself the all of the information was before the b i they could have treated what i submitted within a week of my involvement with the case as a motion arena and they chose not to the decision and denying the appeal simply reiterated the language of the judge it made no analysis of the any of the allegations or affidavits or proof that was submitted  and all we're asking for here your honor is a hearing for the right to be heard before the immigration court under these circumstances and to have this not be treated as an end of censure removal which  robs ms tire of all of her all of her rights and this is a tragic situation where a elderly woman relied on her son in law to help her out who doesn't speak english in the