f the issue as as we see it is really whether the record before the immigration judge triggered the obligation to advise the petitioner of her right to apply for asylum because she had expressed of harm or persecution we there's much debate back and forth in the brief with respondent about exactly how to interpret that section and in fairness there is little guidance yet in case law as to exactly how to interpret the particular duty under subsection c when there is an obligation to notify the petitioner the alien of the right to seek asylum however this the record is the case reflected that there was an asylum application in the file it was the husband's application and petitioner as a derivative applicant at the time that was acknowledged very early in the administrative proceedings back in one thousand nine hundred nine yet when it came time to rule on petitioners application and eventually her consent to removal there was no mention no discussion at all on the record with you the immigration judge of the fact that there was speaking in the husband's application was on the table was specifically being withdrawn the same counsel was there there's no realistic possibility that petitioner was unaware of the possibility of filing for asylum and she's watching her husband's application be withdrawn so i understand that the sense of the argument seems in practical terms the notion that that petitioner was unaware and needed to be advise is not particularly applicable to this case i understand the argument and the facts are what the facts are but the reality is that the cases were treated separately the judge took pains to to separate the husband case from wife's case wife's case proceeds first petitioners case receipts first there is in the record an asylum application with her as a derivative applicant it seems to me there's no question that that was it's not like the court had to ferret through a lengthy record to figure out whether or not asylum was an issue here and whether there had been some expression of concern and it wasn't random expression of concern it was specific to petitioner albeit her  before by an experienced immigration judge you make a reasonable inspection of the record to determine if there were certain rights as to which the alien needed to be advised in th think at a minimum it at least warranted addressing the issue with the petitioner at the hearing the the the judge did take pains to talk about the withdrawal of the husband's application in the husband's separate case that happen concurrently immediately after petitioners case was considered i don't think it is imposing an undue burden and indeed in light of the due process rights and the importance there is a regulation that says i mean there is this awareness of an expression of fear in the record that the immigration judge has a duty to advise the applicant the alien of its right to seek asylum it certainly was present then obvious in the record that that such an expression of fear had been made applicable to this particular person it and only in the sense that he had a derivative application which she had done nothing to express here on her own part benefits to avoid deportation so i it it seems to me that that needs to be taken into account as to what what what standards should be applied here it isn't as though there needs to be an ultimate decision on the merits it simply if the record fairly reflects that that there is an expression of fear of persecution or harm that you simply have the obligation to advise elian to that that they have a right to apply you don't need to adjudicate the issue on the because i'm just not particularly familiar with that i started in one thousand nine hundred ninety eight or because she was the throwing her application for cancellation of removal because of an interruption in what otherwise would be a putting my hands on it seeing a reference so that it was known by everybody in the room if that was how the how it was done along the fold so it's true that his hearing because they were separated came later and the formal withdrawal came later but the form both of them by some reason why she needed to be specially protected despite the fact that she was representing us not just apply to this in terms because in term she did not indicate any player on her own behalf and it were afraid to return to mexico and if the i g had simply followed up with a couple of questions to the female petitioner asking whether she also had such a theory and if she did that she was eligible to departure and asked if she would leave the united states if she was granted that relief when she said yes so due process plane it means and due process proceedings need only receive a full and fair hearing and it seems clear here that she was provided a full and fair hearing and that she was once she expressed her desire to withdraw all applications for relief that she personally had pending and was advised that no other relief was available to her she conceded that that was the case and except for the relief that was granted it do we know asylum i would like to point the court tension as we briefed and i reply brief to its decision in valencia where the court clearly states there is no requirement in an elian vies of the availability of ability of relief from deportation where there is no  eligibility to receive it furthermore because this is called a seems to only rely on her due process claim here she has to show that she was prejudiced in some way in order to support such a claim however in fact never referenced a fear for any any agency whether it was i j or the board so now including before this court she has never expressed any of the i believe three maybe four section that there's nothing that says exactly how the alien has to express fear of harm or persecution it's not detailed and to adopt this coarse language in the morning and rickets case where there the government was arguing for a relatively interpretation of how that regulation should be by the courts we would not read the regulations so grudgingly and i don't see the court to consider that same analysis in this particular case because it's an important right that to seek asylum and i think