of stay solely because of § 214.1(c)(4), which disallowed extensions of stay to non-immigrant Iranian students. Nothing in the record indicates that the District Director refused to grant Abedi-Tajrishi’s application for an extension of stay, or treated her differently from other aliens in some way, simply because she was an Iranian national. See Ghajar v. INS, 652 F.2d 1347, 1349 (9th Cir.1981). The record does indicate, however, that Abedi-Tajrishi’s application for an extension of stay was not timely filed. Even though no reason for the denial was given, the District Director may have denied her application because of lack of timeliness. Before we can properly review the District Director’s decision, a factual record must be developed. See also Tooloee, 722 F.2d at 1439 n. 8 (<HOLDING>). Petitioner must apply to the district court
holding that substantial compliance with the requirements for maintaining nonimmigrant student status under 8 cfr  2142f does not constitute substantial compliance with the requirements for obtaining an extension of stay under 8 cfr  2141c holding that substantial compliance with the requirements for exempting a lessors personal property from a lien is not enough holding factual record necessary to determine if petitioners claim of substantial compliance with various requirements treated differently when asserted by iranian nationals holding that substantial compliance with notice is sufficient holding that substantial compliance is sufficient to satisfy the notice requirements of sdcl 3212 and 3