the facts are largely established by by the record and the pertinent facts at least are not in dispute the fact of the the application falling they being april twenty five one hundred seventy eight and the application not being a and affirmative misconduct and i don't see any affirmative misconduct other than just neglect now interestingly that there's a recent case from this court mor knew that it wasn't moving forward because in one nine hundred seventy eight the fact that when she went back and reapplied to get her l p r status and they told her she had to post a five thousand dollars bond because apparently she had been on some sort of public assistance she didn't do that she had to know those type of things and so it's true it didn't move along but then she didn't do something at that particular point that she didn't post the five thousand dollars and then she went to prison and then she i think threw her sheet there with an application for what if then i won thirty or something along those lines so she clearly knew that she had problems with their status that she had not attained l p r status but i think the problem with the relying on the fact is that the government didn't use it as a basis and i are in september eleventh nine hundred ninety two the decision saying post a bond within sixty question i don't think that i don't think that the facts bear out the fact that she was a public charge it was likely to be a public charge and the fact that they cite in their decisions refer to a time when she was a minor and in fact i think the board even implicitly addresses as they say that evidence of misconduct on the part of the government even if the adverse decision is taken against her in the course of the application were incorrectly decided there is no direct evidence of affirmative misconduct and then they contradict themselves and say well she didn't post the bond but i think implicitly they're it's five thirty four seconds one three two five nine circuit nine hundred seventy six in that case the court also found affirmative misconduct and they said that the patient should not be penalized for for the for the government's an opportunity to establish a stop although you have to prove that she is ignorant of the fact that it hasn't been processed and that's the point of the bond requirement she knows she's supposed to bond and she doesn't  been determined so that's one of the elements that you have to establish first awful well what i think that i mean what she's ignorant of is the eligibility aspect i think that he she didn't i mean clearly she didn't post the bond so that they can attribute that the receipt of welfare or whatever to her a should be attributed to her parents or somebody else because she was a minor so i guess so i think that decision was in error and that's i think the board implicitly acknowledges that  is important to understand in this case that there is no statutory clock running we've heard that there was a dereliction of duty and that the government ha adjudicate this application however without an statutory clock running which was not happening in this case the government has no duty to adjudicate an application that is her get convicted of a drug conspiracy you know it's it's kind of like you know on some level you know i understand that there's a lot of cases but i would really like to hope that the government would move a little more quickly so that we won't have to  victimized by drug conspiracy and she goes to prison for but she gets an eight year sentence does for almost five years so what you know i don't think the government could have been more negligent but tell me why that's not enough of the f approved the stepfather's visa petition was approved in one team eighty six it was in one thousand nine hundred eighty nine three years later that petitioner received the notice to post bonds and by failing act by nor in that letter petitioner by her own actions terminated her application the government has no duty to process a terminated application and the government's duty ended three years into the process i think it's useful to look at page two hundred seven two six two and seven is that letter to petition or it says you are granted sixty days from the date of this notion within which to post the required bond failure to post the bond will result in the denial of your application that's three years into the processing of her first that location at that point the government's duty ended because she failed to perfect her application and the government has no duty to two before conviction so she was therefore eligible to apply for adjustment for a full year between ninety two and ninety three the date of her conviction she had no conviction that would disqualify her and she did nothing she did not apply for adjustment during that year once she was convicted of drug trafficking with the use of firearms an aggravated felony she was disqualified and that happened a year later she did  to renew as she did seek to file for adjustment in removal proceedings using her husband's i won thirty but she has that point was not eligible because of her conviction i think these facts are helpful in putting into perspective that as  first adjustment application we're talking about a three year delay before the petitioner by her own actions terminated her application and the government has no duty no duty at all to an application that is terminated second setting that aside for the moment there is no legal requirement for the government to process and application for a benefit and the statute is quite clear congress knows how to set a deadline if you wish to have a deadline you might compare this with naturalization either that the statute with the regulations under the statute in the regulation have no deadlines for the government act it is de relief this is a discretionary benefit granted by the government this is not something that through which there is any entitlement on the part of petitioners and as a consequence with no duty on the part of the government to meet any deadlines it is virtually impossible for us to say the government took too long but setting that aside for the moment i think it's useful to look at the fact that three years is not is what we're talking about here between the granting of the first high one thirty that meter eligible for adjustment and her terminating admire own actions the been a whole passage every year during which she could have applied for a second application did not do so and after her criminal conviction which she was no longer eligible for adjustment that's when she in her little proceedings renewed her second application you've heard the petitioner has waived the second argument for if you take an i don't think i need to address that i would simply stat while that that this case simply has no legs to stand on from the standpoint of the law or the facts in equity petitioners even even if we were to reach the point of whether or not there was year pre that we're talking about now three years and i think that the government and even congress and the courts have been acknowledging or at least loosening the the restrictions where for example the