last technically eligible for asylum and we would say yes he is a one year rule does not apply to minors and we go through the now since after that the third point is first point on page five five zero in other words more than one application copies in the record but the clearest copy on page three of the application at the if in the u s referring to the child is this person to be included in this application and the box marked yes checked now what does that mean is there anything in the application instructions that say that while the mother is the primary and the son is only would only be a derivative when question number and pager your friend and i want you to your twenty two yes the bottom well ok it's the bottom evidence we believe not because there's there's nothing in the in the instructions to the to the application or instructions from the judge to the mother that listen you need to beneficiary under asylum so i've missed this point maybe i want to make sure i understand your position your position is that when a person checks yes at number twenty two that's the same as a completely separate  petition on the son's part for asylum and withholding and we should treat it as separate from the mother's not necessarily separate but the fact that he has made an application it's  so at the time i've never seen this before and so i want to know where we're going and i've never seen one this argument raised for at the time the mother with droz asylum in which mother with us on a number sitting at the table it was it was assumed that he was asserting his rights as well there so i haven't heard this raised for this is entirely new  so we can we can say that a derivative petition has his making a petition you know is right even though his mother who is responsible for him with ra's it doesn't withdraw his he has an individual right over and above the duty to explain to the mother that her role in the proceedings that would be g has some responsibility to assure that procedural requirements are met if there were really a procedural requirement that the sun put in a separate piece of paper with his name at the top of page one it was the duty of the i j a to say we need something here was this issue raised before the board before the board it the issue was raised in the in  are subject to the one year rule yeah this is my understanding that they are not subject to the one year rule that they at least until majority that they have the right to to raise the issue he could go back he's allowed a new petition my the way i read the facts here is that he's already made a petition and he's already asserted the merits of the case through his mother his mother's testimony in this father's testimony this is your request we sent it back to the board and say this is an issue that has not been exhausted my request at the very least your honor with the issues that we have here  mother's grant of withholding has asylum as a lesser included burden of proof if you will so if she were eligible for withholding then and but for the one year rule she would have been eligible for asylum the son  at least a court to respond to your honor's it's hard to know where to begin because so much has been proffered to the court that will not stand up there is no requirement in the law for waiving the one year bar for minors that was stated in the held him re case by the author of that opinion it was taken from apparently the petitioners brief in that case which is on the internet the petitioner in that case did not bother to give a citation for that what we do is that it's not case law case the board should have asked the full court to look at it but we're just a humble panel of three don't we have to follow that even if we disagree with it even if we say we always should cite a thorny or analysis does i mean no i don't know and it does not appear it did well moving on in this case the minor never asserted claim of his own independently or through a parent the parents claim that he was hoping to be the beneficiary of soley pertaining to themselves it doesn't even mention the son the son at the time of the offense in question was one to fifteen months old appeared at the hearing he was twelve years old he speaks english he declined to testify you know him the miner proffered his own application affirmatively the mother filed her first he filed he is now the claims it's not important to the analysis the claims overlap because what was the same in both was the group claim the mother had the group i find i find this area that confusing and you might enlighten me it doesn't appear that there is there are any standards for  is derivative works in the pen and in my correct on that doesn't appear to be on the form it doesn't the regulations require an applicant to the words list they make this distinction between list and include you must list your biographical family and you had the option the question is right there below that or it's there on the first page or second page it asks do you include different maybe maybe i'm just not putting my question i gather your position is that if it's not a derivative claim you have to file separately is that what your position is that or in some manner proffer your claim  so you think you think you can you can file jointly but you have to indicate on petition the distinctive nature of the claim i'm not going on i'm going to quibble and say are you that you know even if you step forward at a hearing and said yeah i'm listed on there because i'm the child but you know i've got something of my own to proffer here or a claim to make i am not going to say all no he doesn't count because you didn't follow a piece of paper no you make your claim ok you're there because your mother made a in fact what's most interesting is that in the petitions opening brief at seven he says there's no question that he would be made to suffer because of his parents violation of the law and then he says that nine it is done to explain why he didn't come forward whatsoever even when asked to testify it is doubtful that he would have been able to provide any testimony beyond what his parents provided to the record i mean how clear can it be even in the opening brief that he is only a beneficiary of someone else's claim and i didn't really hear anything today to contradict that the government's position insisting in this case my correct that the mother and father would stay here in the fourteen year old son would be richer i suspect that wouldn't happen i suspect that they would knock on the agency's door and say have a heart and i can't imagine the agency forcibly returning anyone then really why are we here why didn't you mediate this case well we don't know what the status of the parents is the father refused to join his case with the mothers which is a troubling matter  we don't know whether he was in deportation exclusion removal we don't know we don't know if if and when either will get a status that would allow them to petition for the son the fact that she has they'll come out and they'll stop until you get it done mother i don't know the big words hire a lawyer it's just silly to say that he has to have a separate piece of paper we have a harsh result for