holding more or worse is no it does not go on to the other family members the judge independently granted her relief from ukraine because she was living in ukraine at the time with her husband immigrating with her she was ordered removed the for route ok now at the end of this hearing the i j a asked about whether she was she had to capability of filing her own asylum petition or her own i guess i guess that's what it was here and here and there was and there was some dialogue about events happening to her family in peru i guess her cousin or something her uncle and i asked whether or not there would be an opportune whether or not the desire to file at that point this case has and is a two month old piece in los angeles immigration court we're currently cases are dragging on for about four years we come into the immigration court we tell the judge and this goes on off the record we say there are we like more time to develop this that mechanism of law we're going to break up a family and we're going to have a situation where they can go to ukraine because they fear harm he and his children have no basis to immigrate to peru to the court my name is kevin karl and i represent the attorney general on this matter in their initial in their opening brief the petitioner to argue that they were not given enough time to present their claims we would take issue with that in that time that the that this case began the first hearing in april of two thousand and three i believe the individuals only presented a claim for asylum and withholding from ukraine that said at the june hearing that it had come to light between the time of the evil hearing and that hearing that the female responder had some sort of claim or thought there was some sort of reason why she could not return to fruit counsel wanted to have more time all said actually that if i was given the opportunity i would investigate whether or not she has a claim and was even clear at that time the immigration judge whether or not the petitioner actually intended to file and i five any or may not have given her the opportunity to get withholding from peru but would not have given every opportunity necessarily to apply for or to receive asylum from faruq the position these are also argues in their dishes also will sit at the marriage hearing focused on the asylum application from ukraine and the reason that that that was true is because that's the only application that was before the court an i five eighty nine application that i should consider abandoned at this point i don't know that he was giving him an opportunity to file that but i think he wanted to know if they intended to file and i five eighty nine because he even pointed out to the petitioner that they had is they would move they would go to the district director for the for the district in which he accused originated and ask if they would jointly move to reopen which we which just happened in the past and remained the case to the to the of this is not the immigration judges fault but that the i a e a itself as noted expressed regret about the consequences here and if there is any basis on which there might be a whether you accept it or not was he didn't feel he had a winning motion to present to them that would have been futile and whether or not that's true i don't know but we do know we've that's we've been told in other cases that  mediate but there's no if you know mediation does require that you come to an agreement but it does seem it might be an opportunity and when we give you will give you some time to check with your superiors  would be interested in hearing whether they will agree to try to mediate a an outcome here that might be able to keep the family together very well i will make sure that i  many regrets so maybe there is something here we're more than willing to listen to ron all right thank you for your time