and stead they seek to have them removed on the narrow procedural grounds that at this point the only thing that can be reviewed is whether or not his appeal to the administrative board was timely the distillers will show first what i mean there's the b i doesn't have any authority to review that so i have a location it can make a withholding of removal determination as it did in this case where it found that petitioners weren't eligible for that but remove your client you don't have a part of fans because the law has has said we previously determined that your client denied by the service centers and there can be reviewed study elio at that point there is no judicial review after that there is a judicial review at the time of deportation of the mind right but the underlying decision is your  client was late and so i don't see any argument as to why your client wasn't late in his appeal to the louka i'm trying to figure out what it is what it is that we can review here well findings in fact of fact and determination at the time of the ministry of review but in this case the administrative board didn't make any findings of fact or legal determinations they simply dismissed right however we did we did argue that their for five years and under the federal regulations they're not even supposed to process and appeal this late yet they processed it before five years until they decided that it was late so it appears from the record that there was probably some confusion  man days during that one year period you don't have to work before or after that or more than he day it's automatically eight he doesn't even have any discretion so at this point if the court were to find that application that he had satisfied that then he would in denying the appeal is untimely additionally the statute suggests that the court only reviews the ele you decision section eleven sixty three b of eight u s code which describes the judicial review ninety day threshold was met or not the law is still in existence i i i not sure i know that the administrative appeals unit has authority these sorts of cases are technically really made it back to the f a a you i know at one have to establish that he is not barred by any subsequent behavior that would prevent him from obtaining such status so his behavior in any sort of criminal actions which i don't know that's part of the record but that would be considered before he was granted such  it indicates that the second page and underscored is that a notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days of this notice and what the l a you found was that the decision was received by mr that it was was not the basis of the ellie's decision ok now i got i'm sure on page twenty seven i'm showing a stamped date with looks like actually somebody to clarify her hand written on  mail twelve twenty nine he won that's unclear but what did the ever you found and it's also important to remember the standard of reviewing in this sort of case well spoken like you why would we even send in the second notice if he was already late he had to file that notice to let him know these four months late on filing his notice actually now i'm confused maybe maybe you can help us with this council is there some kind of a return receipt or other evidence in the regardless of why somebody remailed it that was kind of to perth for us because the decision was originally sent in july it was acknowledged received there was a return receipt stamp for july seventeenth  ninety one so the petitioner clearly had this was months late and that's what the l a you found your honor judge by the i'd like to point you to page thirteen which is doesn't help a lot but it might help a little bit it is a title review we would say that that means that the government should prevail because the petitioner has failed to show that the findings are directly contrary to clear and convincing facts contained in the record for these reasons we believe the petition for review it looks like and i don't have to be honest i'm speculating but my guess is that this was a document produced by the lao to go access it page in the records or to access a director's decision for remailing of that decision i magine that once the director issues the initial denial the notice of decision the record is probably sent to the l a you in case there is an appeal filed although again with respect to the notice that was mailed in december he received this notice again he's not an english speaker at the time they know this they sent him an ink a notice entirely in english that says you have thirty days from this point  dispute that he received that on july seventeenth one thousand nine hundred one i do understand that but even if they're just responding it upon his request they're sending him a notice that says you have thirty days and they're dating at a different date you know i don't well ok it would have been thirty days for him this but but for somebody mr taylor tori's position of course no news is not necessarily bad news because he's a lot stay in the united states in the interim so there's really no reason for him to want to go in and pastor allow two to come up to a decision that may not be in his favor that's true but i think after five years of processing he would have a right to think that his appeal is at least timely even if it would not have been granted and that he had exhausted his administrative remed