voluntary departure period what ran from able to twenty third and thirty days later that would be may thirtieth they filed a motion to reopen on may sixteenth the respondents briefs stated as june seventeenth but actually june stamped all over the motion that indicate that the board was seen this motion on may sixteenth in addition to that the petitioners also styled their motion to reopen motion to reopen and we consider as well a stay about that trying to fit all the statutes and regulations together and i'm looking at one zero zero three point two one reopening and reconsideration this could your client have moved for a stay of execution or was that what was done as part of the motion i think they were trying to do this motion was f they didn't have an attorney who file a motion to reopen they had an attorney below the appeal but they didn't have an attorney to file a motion to reopen and i think in their own way whoever whoever prepared that deportation was that ever ruled on by the well in section three point two the board does have the authority to stay in execution of any for voluntary departure is that separate from the ability of the board to issue a stay of execution or was does a good execution have any time work temporal aspect to it doesn't appear so your honor it just says in that particular section three point two asked that the board may stay an execution of any decision and so it doesn't state that it has to be any particular timeline and so they could have and they didn't in their denial the motions reopened in fact in the motion to reopen it says well because a petition has failed to depart they didn't request an extension of voluntary departure and that they failed to provide an explanation for fai toll the voluntary departure period while they would consider the merits of the motion to reopen right exactly exactly would i would argue here is that whatever proposed is perhaps making a rule basically putting together an equitable rule that one w a petition children to review while the application to the petitioner is that outside the united states and i and i argue here that we basically have the same situation here you're basically forcing a petition special health and educational needs or abandon that that effort by taking voluntary departure basically leaving is defeating the very purpose of the motion to reopen because  removal cases are very difficult to win and in fact the judges look at what the special needs are medical or educational needs of a child and the evidence presented in the motion to reopen clearly falls within the mandate or it clearly falls within the matter of money we'd all be i e case which says you look at the special health concerns or special educational needs of the privilege to voluntarily depart they were given the warnings of the failure to voluntarily depart they failed to voluntarily depart therefore the voice not abused its discretion in denying  petitioners will not have the stigma and the consequences attached to being supported by the service and in this case they're asking they want the benefit of the stay of dan terry departure without living up to the congress put in motion to reopen for whose benefit i am sorry i cannot answer that question specifically i was trying to answer it the best that i'm aware which is that congress intended to information was available to them prior to the first board's decision fair to documents that they include and that's ok but then what's the procedure call it they would file a motion i mean i'm they would file a motion with the board because their decision the first remove all final order removal hadn't come down yet to consider new evidence prior to the first boards decision therefore the board would have had an opportunity to consider this alleged new evidence in their initial decision  stay i wish procedure for that and i'm not sure it's under this three point two a course you know wouldn't be under the motions to reopen ok so it's really not under three point you know so no it was that there's no particular procedure for it a voluntary departure provision in the motion to reopen i don't have to but i do i mean and that was what i'm wondering if i don't think they haven't ruled on this issue and i then keep the status quo in this case stay a voluntary departure time period from continuing to run for a certain time an amount of time and the board has the authority to quote unquote stay in any execution still the execution of any decision it's really could have used that that also gives the board authority to stay the decision to grant the privilege of voluntary departure in terms of introducing new evidence to the procedures that i know of is called a motion to remain and and the motion to remain would be treated as a motion to reopen and that's how i believe that the petitioners could have used but that's a different matter i don't know why their attorney didn't do it of the attorney knew about the new evidence is there a re just says new material material that wasn't available at the time of the hearing well in this case you know that was this hearing was many years before it was proximately four years maybe three to four years before