period but beyond the thirty days of voluntary departure which would be granted by the cia in denying the motion to reopen the way determine that she was barred from applying for any form of relief under the immigration and nationality act because find that the motion to reopen didn't meet the requirements of sufficient for reopening the can still remained on if it were remanded then the be i would have to remember to the immigration judge on the issue of voluntary departure for a background check and petitioner could if there are new facts voluntary departure even though the immigration judge and not the board of immigration feels in the in the decision on the motion to reopen recognize we made a mistake we should have granted involuntary departures to were reopening  that there was false testimony from an immigration benefit while his wife and his two daughters ages nine and fifteen were there he was asked whether he had ever been arrested and he said no and then the trial attorney said well benefit it cannot be because of embarrassment or wanting to protect privacy and this case this what he testified to would not have affected his case he would not have been barred from cancellation removal because of this of the sentence so i don't think there's really showing that there was any false testimony in for the purpose of gaining an immigration benefit ok i have one minute remain good morning your honour's my name is julia tyler and i represent the attorney general of the united states in this immigration case you take each of the petitioners separately and just run through i'd be happy to turn it over to be happy to address the issues that a petition has counsel just raised if you'd like me to the petitioner never appealed the underlying immigration i'm sorry the underlying board decision which was issued on july sixteenth and so anyway your honor responded  decision that rests with this court however the respondent does urge the court to exercise that discretion in this case well suppose before we decide whether we exercise this such discretion if we decide we have it we want to look to see what morning and i haven't seen that urge before your honor's i'm not aware whether this is a recent policy but this is an interesting case in that  voluntary departure and quite remarkably although not being entitled to voluntary departure neither of these individuals did depart within thirty days and furthermore four days after the expiration of the voluntary departure period when they counsel has ever addressed the issue of that bag and baggage letter oh you know you don't know the answer to the question that the judge reinhart asked as to the origin of this policy to urge that ground because we have not seen it policy doesn't apply unless the people are out of the country as long as they're here and you're capable of bringing them into court it only applies when you're fugitives and they're out in the country so at that i just want to indicate there is a case out there but it wasn't evidence well i should say no new evidence the only evidence he presented in his motion to reopen was cumulative evidence with which was supporting his original claim of exceptional and extremely unusual hardship with respect to his younger daughter very giana so under fernandez denied her motion to reopen to apply for discretionary really have cancellation of removal because she failed to depart pursuant to a grant of voluntary departure and as recently as october seventh as petitioners counsel mentioned her granada era this court said that it's not just correct for the board to deny a motion to reopen when a petitioner has failed to depart under a great a voluntary departure but the but the board is compelled to do so pursuant to the statute neither one of them ever grant a voluntary departure pursuant to the board's order and several months after they failed to appear for the back and baggage and it was that november time that they that they corrected it correct he didn't get it ok thank you thank you thank you