clear on the record will but how does that comply with all the what then is the basis for having a deportation order at that point he wouldn't be the pork belly because he only has a mite a conviction of the juvenile for sodomy reopening the only way that you can you can get review here because the under matter of acosta it's characteristics that should not be required to change the yet or drug conviction he was might want to look at again we speak to our clients and sometimes these come out as we're preparing for argument and that's pretty much what happened here what would be if i want to understand the procedural posture if we would have find that musard of compliance with louisana was excused because it was peyton really on the record incompetent not to submit the the readily available proof that shows that the conviction has been set aside where does that place him does that mean that he is then still has a suicide bomb day hurdle to get past or is he now past the number and time bars and gets heard without having to go to that's an excellent question and it's not sure right this looks like a double step i guess what you'd call equitable tolling case right on the one hand he's got to have the equitable tolling to get he's got he's arguing equitable tolling to get back to the time he filed his original motion right but there's an additional period of equitable tolling that needs to come into play and that's the equitable tolling that goes from two thousand and fifteen all the way back to one thousand nine hundred and ninety six and i'm not sure how that gets know but i think so arguably it's not something the board has addressed here and the board didn't give that as a reason for saying we're not going to equitably told us because we're the point and so it's one of those things that we would like to get back to the board if the conviction is set aside what is the grounds for removing him from the united states if his well if the removal since his convictions been vacated if the bore if it were to be re and the board say of those convictions are no longer you know that conviction no longer supports either the grounds or movability we don't have a ground remove ability becomes a lawful permanent resident again then how did the before not abuse its discretion in saying that there was no prejudice because he was basically a bad person on the balance of equities i mean he's not deportable but will deport him anyway because he's a bad person well the board has  particularly in the so a spawn take context right has this broad discretion to deny relief to people who knows to be not deportable right and this court in fact in july had a decision in which the board had said there was an individual who had who had had his case i believe who had it is conviction vacated came back years later the board said no and in fact his argument was well the board does this and in some number of cases  pointed to eight out of thirty thousand and there's a subtle practice that allows you know and so the board should be required to sue a sponte reopen my case and this court said no no that's that's not the case so entry or they could say there's a need for finality and at some point we're just not going to allow for reopening in these cases it could very well have done that but that's not all that  cause was getting at this maybe a minute ago but can you go back to the issue of we understand the board has a right authority can reopen these were the circumstances under which it must and he says it as it would relate to this case it must reopen and at least give it a fresh look so if there is no statutory zero under this was spontaneous sore spot a power there is none there is no requirement that it reopen a case it's it's purely left to the discretion of the eichmanns that that's the whole point of item and it's entirely left of the board the only time in which there is any review is when that underlie it when that decision posits some underlying  legal or constitutional analysis that's an accurate and even then it goes back to the board to make its discrimination on whatever discretionary grounds it wants it's a discretionary grounds here upon which the board can because determination independent probation the probation order those are the two as well as is unlawful reentry right your honor and so they could but there's the difficulty with the juvenile adjudication and that's that the board says you know indicates that there are multiple convictions for sodomy whereas and i'm going to be agnostic as to whether or not he has a conviction or an education let's just call it a disposition we don't know enough in the record but we do know in so far as this record relates to anything there's only one the exception to when we can review right description or denials right or tell me what statute or constitutional principle was as to the pure discretion ok as for the pure discretionary determination at the end of the decision i'm not going to say that that's probably protected and you already were five what are you referring to in the end the decision what do you the end of the decision where they just throw out a through a say you know as in so far as we're dealing with a suicide is this is a request pursue a spot a reopening you know for the reasons we've good and furthermore the responder's motion does not demonstrate an exceptional situation we would want terminate you know if that grounds is not a basis for reopening and there is no basis for him to seek relief anyway wouldn't the united states of america represent what you want us to do to remain in this back to the agency from the nd paragraph i mean from the rd paragraph of the st page of the decision all the way to the i guess through the st full paragraph of that nd page is an equitable tolling determination so you've got that st set you know those  few couple of paragraphs which are inequitable tolly determination and then you come down you have the discussion of change country conditions or three paragraphs that have to do with that and the final paragraph is the final you know through sponte we're not going to reopen this case so it is your position that the the discussion of the saddo and the prejudice that there's something wrong with with a b i said here at the very least i would say that the board's decision needs to be filled in and that it would be useful to have the board fill in that decision a little more than we were with what with what would fill it in with what one to address in the st instance whether or not  the whether or not you have ineffective assistance of counsel on its face under ray is i think that's the st part to what it would mean for there to be ineffective assistance here how far back does that ineffect assistance get you for purposes of equitable tolling right and then to evaluate the prejudice again because the prejudice prong does have this juvenile adjudication they have not discussed in any detail what that juvenile adjudication is if it's a if it's a i mean if it's a juvenile legislation whether this disposition if you've got adjudication or alternatively whether it's a conviction and also to sort of determine how many of them there are because here they seem to indicate that there is more than one of them more than one conviction for sodomy but having them go back and to determine based on that how it would evaluate that question a prejudice at the back a