for asylum in withholding a deportation on the basis of change country conditions there is no question that mrs sharma qualifies for adjustment of status and the government does not contest that she submitted sufficient evidence her motion to reopen to meet the relatively lab standard there namely that there is a reasonable likely to success on the merits nor could it just as sharma has been married for nearly thirty over thirteen years she has years they have had a child together they remain married today likewise writing to you about the timing since you certainly fundamentally that is the government's argument that the motion to reopen  filed on timely and putting aside for the moment the question of whether told you the deadline was equitably told even if it were on timely filed there is the fact that it was the result in effect of raised the issue was not was not squarely raised before that but there were facts on the record which would have given the opportunity to address time issues and certainly this court  held that particular approach to a filing as was the case here a petition need not raise the issue in quite the direct way that would be expected otherwise further this court has held that in the occasions that the law is author requirements are quote not tanker st and that where the the evidence that would be that would that would result from complying with the lasagna requirements are plain on the face of the record th for to reopen this matter because of her marriage we know that she was married as as not as early as she was married in early two thousand and sorry early one thousand nine hundred four that it was in the context that you're married during the midst of the  with i believe it's with her husband and and there is the deportation hearing of course where where they unfortunately appeared late and therefore was  sort of one sided and say there's a lawyer here who's old who was a lawyer and committed malpractise and we're going to do it on the basis of these of these inferences and the exceptions that we have to laws are in those cases in which it's apparent on the face of the record that we've good morning i'll first address it just new status motion then move on to the asylum motion since i don't get rubato and i need to make sure everything is covered there is nothing in this record that shows that the immigration judge specifically advised to of that and if you look at page two twenty seven in the motion to reopen it she submitted which was pro state she had knowledge that she understood that the five year bar point were pretty terrible for indications you know we request that you look at pages ninety nine to eighty seven of the record which is in fact her one page on sworn declaration which is as i would put it fact deficient as to what happened she didn't have a hearing no she didn't have a hearing in the whole of the case extended and extended at this point going back to the asylum application we know that she herself through to council submitted a two thousand two state department report saying that conditions had pretty much reverted back to what they were in fiji that there was no more problems the way that she was complaining about she was not eligible for asylum at that point she had my only concern here in the government's only concern here is that the issue of adjustment of status isn't before the court it's whether that be ira abused its discretion in denying in on timely motion petition  on and as i say we haven't really touched upon the asylum issue yet and i've only got a minute to do so but uganda has touched upon it if she has not shown in which she submitted an individual ised risk there was first with respect to the five year bar we addressed this point to page thirty two for their fourteen of our opening brief where we explained that under this circuit's president the fact that it's a trauma appeared tardy to your hearing does not necessarily constitute a failure to appear under section eleven eighty two and i would refer your honor is through african earth if that point troubles you with respect to the emotional reopening on the basis of change country conditions fundamentally the government's argument is that the b r d it was correct to ignore the evidence of individual eyes or respect sharma had previously submitted that evidence does suffice to show individual's rights at least basis we appreciate your having having done that and your conscientious attention to it zero five five six to one nine university immigration and naturalization service each side is a lot of ten minutes