inherent do you do you not before it lights on you're not explicit about what it is you are looking for you know your honor i think i believe that under the as thirty eight of the ministry of records that show copies of the you know her class even went through the exceptional measure of taking a hit filing a petition for writ of mandamus in federal district court which and a copy of that petition was also included in a motion to reopen the awful exercise her appeal rights by a file filing an appeal before the b i a of the underlying order and as well before the corps and on to supreme court underlying mourner so i believe that sufficiently made enough effort to show the need to do diligence problem with regard to the extraordinary circumstances what are you asking us to make the  time eighty eight to ten months but i follow what i say to you and what i'm trying to get at is if we were to agree with you that because we're didn't you know the court here seem to equitably told here and in fact there may be some good reasons why you can walk the grand equable cold here but we're not dislike that you decide that that's up to you why yeah evidence and more more than she made more of an effort than some at her as the standard of the circuit applies of her due diligence in extraordinary circumstances and it's simply that her choice of words and preventing with evidence should not be used as a reward to the government in action well she's not pro se she had counsel right i mean it's not a circumstance where we have to sort of try to figure out what she can and she's got a lawyer telling us what tell the be a that's correct but in terms of public policy it would it would it would be it would be it would grant access to the court to a mon the circumstance and fact of the board does not have the power to grant general equitable relief from the move for a little bit of context here this is something that is commonly paired with for example  request by petitioner for prosecutorial discretion or grants of humanitarian parole two things which are expressing written in either statute or regulation as something for you know just to do or not to be a matter was not a reference to equitable tolling then address ms lynn's primary argument which is look if you read what she said to the  board we have she's clearly asking for equitable relief she's clearly making the case that the government stood in the way of her being able to file this on time big government delayed this on the board decision which is a belief three through five or so you see that both of these documents proceed in lockstep following a two tier structure that tracks the structure of the motion wheels and which is made available before the response from the order became filed suit to the government's delay that is you know so they miss cited cases of about countries country conditions it's obvious she's talking about her case her circumstances and the government's delay and saying hey give me a break on this timing you guys held it up one we read that how could we understand that as anything other than a statement that says in fairness you should give me this opportunity in other words equable told well the reason you can read it as anything other than the statement is because it is couched in something other than suffering working on or just not to reiterate but it is  clearly not i mean you've just you've just noted and i just noted this has nothing to do with country circumstances in been bob way so right so when you say it's in that context so that the only way to understand it is obvious  petition beyond the point where it was any good to are really i find reprehensible conduct on the part of the government and in my mind and remedy is for the court to address what your honor is referencing mind you is basically an allegation one official make at this point in time and it's based on a limited record that she provided before the agency which starts with an e mail chain where she what might have been a point here in the factual determination which were not conducted by the agency precisely because this claim was not raised before the court and what the last point i was going to make of my earlier string before your question  your argument isn't holding together you're saying the scoring was just before the war it was the same time there was this ordinance delay that she was complaining about and you know i can see that perhaps the best thing to do is to send it back but if the same time this conduct on the part of the government seems to me something that is well worth looking into and if the best way to do it is to send it back then that di maggio says you just you guy you rd circuit people if you can't read that fairly that way it would have said it more politely you judges you can't read it that way because we cited the matter of medina and matter medina had nothing medina that reference was actually an affidavit because it involved the alien to seeking protection under the geneva country convention and so that actually doesn't have to do with motion a motion to reopen contact  however i do want to point that that that even by that very thing a man the board made an error of law because they do have a remedy under equitable or to manage erring grounds and that would be to consider  show we thank you very much for your argument we ducked the case under advisement