some time three months or so after we issued our decision did you see that isn't applicable tolling argument i think that the board was referring to after tolling it said that there had been a lack of due diligence and that is an element  i'm again that's only one of four issues now even with regard to that point about what role tolling the ports analysis was deficient because it didn't say anything about what due diligence what its standard is for due diligence and due diligence has to be circumstance specific so the court the board should have considered the specific circumstances like the fact that this is a family that was destroyed that it was very difficult to reach them and that it was a pet who's essentially impossible to do so i'm relatively recently in the case now the  a noncitizens motion to reopen that's additional authority for this court having jurisdiction in this matter this court should also take this opportunity to reconsider its incorrect holding in darren schumann versus munched that immigration judge me evidence that the judge herself said she wanted and when we presented that evidence to the judge this was a declaration from mr c lays out the the brother of his stand fiance we presented that declaration to the judge the judge refused to consider it th and from it basic humanitarian perspective it matters because this is a man whose life is that not on the line and you can see that by looking at his sister's declarations where they talk about the brutal violence against this family and the fact that correct if you look at the sister's declarations and energy to do so you see that it wouldn't have been possible in two thousand and fourteen to get this evidence because of the fact that the family was a strange and the sisters were in an unknown location so there was no ability to get that and i'm trying to figure out you know the difficulty of somebody who's fundamentally off grid in another country what the government regards persons burden to be the most drop in it's meant to what the immigration judge wants or is there something about this case that should have allowed him to realize that that's what he should have gotten some time before the immigration judge ruled well it's circumstance pacific your honor in a case where required then they go on a date to explain that they don't find that persuasive a or an exceptional situations of the board clearly understood why do you want to reopen it but they declined to find this situation exceptional and that's within its discretion do you said that there is going to need a standard because we don't know what a fundamental change in law is that there is no there is no policy or art system in place to determine what that is and what the board has some sort of rump which you to the tory are standard and there qualified immunity because the supreme court has told us at least thirty five times that you believe the recess the police officers activity not at a broad level like don't violate the th amendment or don't violate  but at a very granular level so a person in that instance has to has the burden of telling the government very specifically what was wrong but the government seems to be saying here we don't need to do that we can just say we get to ask for  and that's why i gave him the benefit of the downside i don't think this is enough for me to find him incredible but that's what i'm expecting provocation so like i said i think this is more maybe this is a really borderline cases you know it might be a borderline case with a credibility determination but it certainly isn't a borderline case of the burden of proof issue