deny withholding when and you wanted to attack that ruling when would you attack that when you have to wait till the i j a ruled in order to to appeal that holding to the b felon procedure you may have appeal prematurely but now we should take jurisdiction anyway so what i want to hear what you have to say about that under those circumstances the final order would still be final because withholding and  independent of each other you can see if you're making a different argument to know what i'm interested in so let me try to make it clear let's assume that you filed your notice of appeal prematurely british in for you later becomes finally after you file your notice of appeal we treat it as if it were time we filed so is there any some circuits have to have made that kind of ruling with respect to these kinds of orders others have not why should ripened not because that has no effect but because the order of the immigration judge became final after you filed your petition for a view in this case the order of the agile only rights with all that you were missing each other so go ahead  clients difficulties were the reason that the petition was not timely file that would be up to the application of law to the facts but the actual facts are not disputed even if you want to move like the and they are we wasn't the primary reason i think he said that if i'd like i would submit that those are legal arguments not actual arguments because lamenting are addressing the same exact facts one guy says in your argument really or shouldn't your argument really be  or other facts if they had looked at all the circumstances all to case then they would in my opinion have reached a conclusion that it was because of p t s d that there but you sure failed to file the application within the one year deadline  persecution with anyone that might have been able to provide assistance to him and they've also ignored the psychological report they acknowledge its existence but they ignored the factual determination it made w avoided that discussing his trauma as a mechanism for survival and to be able to just live on that day basis and that's why he did not seek out any professional help including medical help that might withholding yes or no and ok that's all that was my question i think you're over your time well over your time council so let's hear from the government thank you i don't think they have the ruling yet but the nd and rd had ripening rules and absalom left that open but so why shouldn't we have what should have absolute whatever it was called yes left open whether we should adopt one open but it made it final orders every removal and says she's characterizing it like to disable or herself in a strange way that i think we contemplated that after the final exists but it's being with how it's not being executed under that particular type of protection we call these sometimes things for relief and protection and so for example in this case they want to pursue the case to get asylum which is a form of relief leading to absolute clearly states background checks could and you conviction could have arisen requiring further analysis of withholding of removal for example so when the court were to adopt ripening it would just i think would render this kind of law less  have a case like absolute and yet no circuits so absolutely kind of removes that part of the malice as saying that you know you know when you should have filed yet you're going to jump the gun because you're just regarding our president or you just want to see some advantage by filing early with the advantage by filing her in this case there's probably not much advantage but there's other cases where for example someone in order removal but it languishes for decade and then they're picked up by immigration authorities because some minor arrests and then they file a motion to reopen and at that point i guess they have a rule is not automatic for the board and so they could jump the gun and file  miss court just to get the automatic stay so while their motion to reopen is pending they will knowingly file in this court just to have you skate the workings of the government that we need this case you're not claiming any prejudice or you know jurisdiction to determine whether or not to correct legal standard was why do you agree the grid so did the i j a talked in terms of his mental health not being the primary reason for the late filing isn't the standard different in the legal standard that isn't a legal standard that if it was a substantial contributing cause to the to the it might be an extraordinary circumstance well in this part of the holder they discussed this regulation where it was implemented for the extraordinary circumstances exception and one of the three circumstances requires that the sort of circumstances directly related to the reason for delay and that's a place that is quoted at some point he do you mean question to quotes the right language to be to be sure but then he's finding says substantially didn't substantially contribute or something the one the petitioner gave in direct response to his testimony when asked specifically what was the reason for a delay he said my unawareness i didn't know sign existed at the time and so i just chose the credit that response and that's a different standard from directly related you know related is more association will prevent just like preclude obstacle there might be a difference there but the emigration judge's decision is still on review it's not being prevented from