years time we filed statutory motion to reopen remains and be before the court when he filed what this court should deem as a supplemental motion to reopen and reconsider its case in two and i'm sorry to interrupt on the question of the two thousand and nineteen motion and the two thousand and four motion is still being open we are to to argue that before the board it you have to exhaust that before you can bring that issue to this court where did you specifically raise that issue that the two one hundred one thousand motion should relate back to the two thousand and four that you made that argument in terms of jurisdiction not in terms of relation back so you certainly raised that but it was not in the context of saying to the board your decision with respect to marin and the post departure bar regulation and then the board also decided that it did not have the authority to address this argument under requirement that the the victim be under the age of sixteen in the with respect to the illinois senate shoot your honor here the requirement that the victim under the age of seventeen is not explicit instead the illinois statute is older is broad because it states that the victim most be under the age of seventeen furthermore we only get there if there's equitable tolling he files timely motion to reconsider the orange never duplicated you know it it let's assume if he did file a timely motion to reconsider a reconsideration motion deals with the law at the time as opposed to a motion to reopen which deals with the law subsequent to that so your motion to reconsider would go back in time to two thousand and four and the supreme court's opinion in escrow hadn't been issued at that time motions now that were raised before the board of immigration appeals and that we did raise in brief before this court with respect to what it will totally be boards jumping ahead to if we get to sue a spotty but on the equitable tolling issue the question is whether or not the board abused its discretion in finding that it did not apply you permanent resident and he had a great deal to lose and so with respect to the prejudice argument we submit that he has demonstrated prejudice with this also part of the equitable these opinions that he has an established diligence if you don't have diligence it doesn't matter whether or not there's prejudice so how do you get around again our standard of review is abuse of discretion how do you get around that given the board's findings that your client wasn't diligent in pursuing this had been supported in february of two thousand and four and i'd like to move on to the issue of who is on the circumstances and the exceptional circumstance conviction should be found not to constitute an aggravated felony he presented evidence regarding his extensive family ties in the united states and the fact again that he was never just portable as originally charged but i think you would agree on the sewer sponte issue that under our existing case law the fuller decision that our review of the board but the board did pursue a spotty is very very limited and that under fuller we can only assess whether or not constitutional or legal errors were committed by the board so how would you fall within that limited exception within that exception your honor the but when the board made that statement in its decision it was discussing them beauchesne to reconsider that the motion to reopen so it was discussing the motion to reconsider and what was relevant was the in his affidavit in support of reopening reconsideration he has provided no evidence of due diligence whatsoever if there were problems that he had in mexico raising his argument if this motion he did not tell us about them that the the fact that he is in a different country probably didn't learn about this right away what about that argument why wouldn't that be sufficient to an get around to diligence because  him change the course of his capes and so i think that's why he's there on trying to make an argument that will this relates back to some pending motion to reconsider and again that hasn't been exhausted before the agency and there's l for indecent solicit it cannot be truthful role for indecent solicitation of a child because he was dealing with an undercover police officer and there was no charge and in this last decision publishes this not this court is withdrawn so if the different regulatory section of this court has not overrule in comparison to the church ners where this court has overturned the regulation of those departure bar with respect to the issue of exhaustion i would rate bring this court's attention to page eight of our reply brief where we address the exception on the issue of exhaustion as it applies to this case with respect to the issue of the argument and