raises three issues the first is whether the time limit for filing special motions to reopen under the nicaraguan adjustment and central american release act can be equitably told  is whether the immigration judge abused her discretion in denying petitioner full of you know daily owns motion to reopen reopen his untimely under section two or three of the car and not equitably tolling the time limit for filing a motion to attorney so he should be given time in order to rectify that situation in order to present his petition to reopen the unique circumstances of this case is that there is an immigrant who as this court has recognize is extremely vulnerable when under situations where they're going to be deported and this immigrant did his best in order to find out what he needed to do in order to timely bring his every all of the delay that occurred afterwards is a direct result of the fraud of the notary well i think there are all kinds of mistakes and bad things done by the tarheels in that and they missed deadlines all the time and to the disadvantage of the but if you were writing this to make it isn't it we can't just write a blanket everybody who is injured by who  application was pending so as in those cases he diligently followed up and when he finally got it got suspicions that perhaps his application was not filed he went in to the immigration court to follow up and see what was happening with his application at that point he discovered that the the clerk had indicated that maybe something had been piled me but that he should follow for your request to determine what exactly happened in his case it the wrong thing nothing was done nothing was done and so at this point keep in mind this is an immigrant who has who is under deportation i think hearing in a deportation order in is  position he then has to find another attorney to see what he can do in order to rectify this problem in order to get his application before the court and follow all of that and follow the necessary procedures and he did that and he followed up and wrote a letter to the attorney and filed a complaint with the bar explaining what had happened and he filed this application to the application was filed and then he would subsequently ask for additional money to petition wanted him to do more and since he had said that the application was pending there was no need to pay him or he felt to follow up however after months of not getting a result the petitioner took it into his own hands and went to the court himself directly taking that extra step to matters believe that that's what he was supposed to do and he did exactly as he was told i think we should hear very from the question i think we'd like to hear from the government that granted him the privilege of voluntary departure and injured an alternate order of deportation which is near chose not to appeal that final order to this court moved locally within that never the part of the united states and in two thousand some the two hundred thirty ninth day of the two hundred forty day period which means that the clock was stopped if assuming tolling which i i'll get to that there was one day left on that clock and  person and went to the immigration court where he found that there was no record of any motion filed now i would take issue with actual representation that he was told he must file  immigration porton one nine hundred ninety nine and before the board of immigration appeals and in two thousand and nine i think in the original applications for relief and the arguments this petitioner had some you know there was some difficulty or unique primary issue of whether the statue can be told there are two grounds for this in the first of which is that i'm so dealt with the ninety day period for filing motions three up and set out and eight c f r three point two and that sort of occasion is changed over time but in that case that general motion to reopen provision in soak up and solace recognize the congress and delegating authority over the general class of motions to reopen and instruct the attorney general to consider general such broad flexibility by stark contrast section two of three and a car provides no flexibility as to the attorney general in the creation of exceptions to the two hundred forty day time period unlike the general class of most and surreal vents in which equitably told and i would draw your attention to the language section two hundred three of the car and i was quoted in part the trying general shall ignite a specific time period in which all such motions to reopen are required in the result all of his delay was the direct result of ineffective assistance of counsel actually in this case a notary posing as an attorney as an attorney telling him you're saying there's no reason the next day that he couldn't have done something  application he's not capable or of knowing what exactly he needed to do that's why he sought the help of an attorney to tell him what he should do and that this attorney took a long to follow his application isn't a result of isn't the result of  that he had been doing things before august third i believe is when he filed his the motion to reopen their stock in july indicating that they were working on this in order to get it filed so the fact it was f the entire asylum procedure from from most of the parts of it i mean way back way back when he doesn't like somebody i'm familiar with the process he's been through it well well i