brought him to this country from mexico when he was seven years old which in phoenix the phoenix area has been a continuous home for the last twenty one years it's been where he's gone to school where he's gotten married where he's worked where he's had children now in two thousand and four after removal proceedings after the procedural history i won't recount here before his voluntary departure period expired an order of removal or a voluntary departure and he was still within the voluntary departure period but it doesn't the statute require that the person not be hundred in order of removal in order to be eligible for the and that as long as he hasn't over stated voluntary departure period is not subject to the civil penalties attendant to overstaying the voluntary departure period the he was rolled up into the eligibility of his wife when she became eligible and because he is before the expiration of the voluntary departure period there is no reason under the statute why he shouldn't get relief and be heard on the wholly specious legal grounds without the right to appeal even as let's assume that that's true counsel do we have any jurisdiction to review than the current denial doesn't doesn't actually make very clear that we don't have jurisdiction to to review it no your honor i don't think so and i think there's a couple points to make in that regard and that is limitations on jurisdiction under the law in our briefs is construed very narrowly right to really for a daily into this construed broadly or in favor of the alien now when he applied for a car of relief it was in a very unique procedural posture because his removal proceedings were completely over and done yet he had the statutory right to appeal than a car or a denial from you don't have a right to appeal the card denial directly why do you have a right to appeal it in a petition that you filed three years before they did the current application was denied well how do you wire greater light by filing a premature petition for review than you would on a direct review i think i understand your honest point and certainly i can be corrected if i'm wrong but we're not asking for th the court what are you asking first tell us what you want from this court i want the court to order the immigration court which now has the file to an alien pursues what congress told him he was eligible to pursue now well let's get back up just one day as i read this record your application before the u s c i s was  on the merits and it had nothing to do with his failure to depart as a basis of the dying that the car application so that's a that's a clean matter before the u s c i s that's done and over so what is there left for us to do well i guess there's a the sticking point here is what it means to say that it was considered on the merits they did not rule on the merits of the car application they denied it on the purported basis that he did not apply for a new car relief by september eleventh one thousand nine hundred eighty eight which is provision that applies to the principal in the car applicant not to my client and wh appeal from the where does your appeal rights go from the u s c i s does that go to the court of appeals or through the district court or worse it go under under the statute it appears that after you go to u s c i s and let's there's any right to appeal from the u s c i s i suppose well if you have no right then what's all the shooting about i mean why are you here that's well that's that's that's over and done with you have no right to  application and what's left well there if there's a statutory right too derivative in the car a relief then someone's got to have jurisdiction to review it if it's just denied wholesale without being reviewed on the merits and i think but you but you didn't but you waive your right to appeal it directly when you didn't file a petition for relief in two thousand and eight well i'm just  i'm just assuming your premise but is that somebody has jurisdiction to review it seems to me that you would have you would have had to file the petition after was denied in august of two thousand which you didn't do and i guess your honor the point there is we already had this petition for review pending which basically asked the court in the start of the hated station and turned into a petition for review which was in the car being a car application should be considered on the merits in the meantime he shouldn't be deported or be subject to what was considered  does not have jurisdiction over the petition and the transfer should not have been requested nor granted so it was sure that we should send it back no because the district court also would not have  which it lacks for a number of reasons being just one of them and the case certainly is moot on several points first as you have pointed out the in a car application was denied and assuming purely for the sake of argument that some appeal right exists no appeal has been taken anywhere second what mechanism does a petition or propose for getting this back he says to the immigration judge does he propose to simply bypass the b i the be i am is the there is the there's one of two orders there's either the two thousand and three order from the b i a or there's the two thousand and five denial of the motion to reopen is this court you simply and send it to the i j that's not a mechanism that's acknowledged in the statute anywhere that the government is aware of so precisely how is this court to get it to someone who can review it the district court cannot review it there's nothing tending there and what's more the denial of the in the car application was not part of the petition that was transferred to this court because that petition was transferred in two thousand and five in a car that the voluntary departure it was told of stayed really challenge the execution of a removal order which we have jurisdiction over under section twelve fifty two g actually i would say and remove all however there has been subsequent supreme court cases that has somewhat restricted the stay of removal however this isn't talking specifically about his state of removal it's stating the execution the order which may sound like a distinction without a difference it is not what he has asked for is tolling of the voluntary departure period so that the order never became an order of removal that's somewhat different from a state of arming moveable and in this case any fraud and the gross misconduct any deception any error independent of the petitioner through due diligence that he could have discovered that would allow this court to grant equitable to so even if this court even if the district court even if the immigration judge of the b ira could get past all the various jurisdictional hurdles there is simply no basis for equitable tolling other than the petitioner wanted to have more time well doesn't every petitioner want to have more time and unfortunately that's not the basis equable tolling is granted only in fairly egregious cases and there ordinarily combined with ineffective assistance of counsel or ineffective assistance of the torrijos there's simply been not a single allegation ever of anything that comes close to the misconduct or the errors necessary to grant equitable to moreover petitioner claims he actually is challenging the final order or however he is phrasing it the problem is he fails to give this court any identify any material error in converting the order from a voluntary departure to an order of removal where was the error that he has never alleged that he was not advised that it would convert to an order of removal he's never alleged that he was removal we don't have that therefore he would like someone to review it but based on what just wanting review isn't enough to simply state to this court that well there's been a wrong there must be a remedy the federal courts are not courts of general jurisdiction federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and there are wrongs for which there are not remedies in the federal courts well how about let me try tried as one for very clearly said that aliens should have a right to unilaterally withdraw from of requests for a voluntary departure every garlits of the underlying merits of the motion to reopen if done within the voluntary departure period this is the key they have to do it within the voluntary departure period he did not voluntary departure period was long actually months gone before he ever filed his motions reopen before he ever filed his hey b s petition in district court it was said have to be done within the voluntary departure period or you become ineligible for relief relying also on the court's decision is a martinez and in that case they martinez was a case in which the alien also didn't become eligible until after the voluntary departure period or very close to when the voluntary departure period ended and this court said that's bad but that's too bad that's what the statute and that is what the supreme court has said therefore you're simply out of luck as donna put it you do have this difficult choice but it's a difficult choice based on a grant of of voluntary departure you've always got you've already gotten a grace from the government so once you've gotten that now you've got a tougher road to hoe you've got to decide do i want to keep this act of grace do i want to roll the dice and go with this other administrative mechanism and yes that's a hard choice but  very clearly that's the choice you have to make and if you take the latter choice you run the risk that the motion to reopen won't get decided or something will time out before your voluntary departure ends and or before  before you have a chance to do anything else and then you're stuck with an order of removal and you ask then the government can remove you so that's what they say you get again you get it in before the expiration of voluntary departure or you're out of luck because the government just serves it benefit of the bargain as well the aliens have had theirs in effect this petitioners have his benefit of the bargain and then some he has been in the united states now heading on what calculation twenty years that well yes but i mean since the expiration his voluntary departure for at least a year if not more depending on where any particular court wants to start counting the voluntary departure period therefore he's already had his benefit of the bargain now the government deserves it benefit he's rolled the dice he took his chance he lost and there simply is no further mechanism for him more important if he had really wanted to get that issue before this court he could have not only by filing some appeal of  quickly touch on the data issue the ninth circuit in the far as acknowledged the the rule in data certainly in that it's binding law but for pre situations the law being what it was you know the cases are to ember oh so insurance aragon where the court did toll voluntary departure periods the alien in light of what the law the law used to exist should be allowed to go back and withdraw as voluntary departure so predate a you should be allowed to do that we were certainly free data when he was  flying for a car a relief and was presented with a catch twenty two situation of pursuing a statutory right to relief or risking you know violating voluntary departure so at the very least it should be remanded to allow him to withdraw from voluntary departure and now counsel also raises the issue of motions to reopen that really is not the relevant procedure here current application because he filed in a car application before the voluntary departure period ended that was what the regulations told him to do and the other cases motions to reopen with the only way to get what you needed done