their first that subset of due process requires a hearing that takes into account the separation of the family before removal can occur second that international law requires the same and third that the v a abused its discretion and violated evidence that they suffered prejudice from point that it appears to me that it's not a question of whether they overstayed by thirty or sixty days it's been years well it hasn't you know explain why first of all we don't believe that they have to show end how much time do the petitioners have to deal with their children here to make arrangements for them etc and the immigration judge said they have sixty days they haven't what happens is when the court finally decides i reject everything else and they do have to leave the united states then they have to get their first north after arrange for care of their children etc and the immigration judge said well they have sixty days to do that the boy just arbitrarily change that to thirty days and it didn't even explain denied asylum saying no well founded and that was it the board they wote but added in and saying in addition we think this was a frivolous claim and therefore you're barred for life they say well but they added that one sentence that changes everything and doesn't that decision is improper to a row and it's a violation of the regulation abuse of discretion there has to be a lien then to the agency to clarify the decision under chevron because and i'm sorry under generally because this court ca it would be the same issues a voluntary departure really isn't the issue here the issue here is the board issue two decisions or the agency did and we don't know which one to apply but i would do want to address the contrary as our country for one for one moment if the court does reach that for reject own island peals applied in the federal courts the court said we we will no longer apply that period of time but we're not going to apply that retroactively we have to apply that perspective the only because we're changing the rules midstream that was this court in the on bond decision said we can't sort of say i gotcha yeah you filed under one rule and now too bad we changed the rule that would be true here under control as are gone here if you snooze filed it could curse oregon they expected to have thirty either you know ignore the board decision and take the the i j decision or we're going to take the four decision but we're not going to allow it to do that we think it should be manned and then and then the board can decide what it's going to do we think we think statute would have to be more clear than it is and that the court can can take international law principles that apply that to the statute when the statute doesn't civically i guess of the size issue of whether a hearing is required in these circumstances we think it we think it does it has international law and analyze that interim domestic law in fact the supreme court has emphasized for about one hundred twenty five years now that the executive is entitle to particularize deference because the executive needs it will consider international carriers foreign relations immigrant the board in reducing the period from sixty to thirty days makes no suggestion that there was an error in the case it is simply following the procedures that yes there was a grant voluntary departure and more expanded period has passed more than the sixty  the board will continue voluntary departure for another thirty days after it's to say it's not it's not saying the immigration judge is wrong and that perhaps that's what might be misleading the court it's simply it's up firming the immigration judge simply saying that as a matter of the board's procedure as happens in every case before matter of am was decided the period be would be made an additional thirty days after the board's final decision there's no river reversal  statutory procedure it would be inconsistent to say that an alien had to choose additional review or facing the consequences of failure to voluntary depart therefore under the statutory regime the court reached contrary ar always is has it well plus it's got to change decision and under the regulation it says it shall not include any further order or explanation so if it by the regulation it has to be made for that but if we do believe you're on is that the court should announce a rule here no matter which way it goes on the other issue announce a rule here in this case that when someone filed under control as are gone that they have the right to rely on that and go for it like the court the on bank or didn't done that now do the same in this case the court announced the rule it wasn't based on the language of the statute the time the controls are a gun rule was was a rule that just said ok here's the rule we're going to apply it's not fair to where they can change yes become a get a new regulation that doesn't say no further order explanation is allowed if they could probably get that they could change this regulation and say we could dock for a throne without opinion everything and we can automatically say when we do that if there was more than thirty days voluntary departure it will be thirty days they can do that by regulation but they have to change a regulation notice a comment it's letter here it doesn't they do that thank you very much i'm sorry t