the permission of the court i'd like to focus today on to a position that i believe will clearly take up enough of my ten minutes the first issue is that whether the application of the one year time bar to my client's case is me was in error our position in the case is that indeed it was the nine hundred ninety three asylum application that my client filed sadly remained pending until two thousand six he was not even interviewed by the immigration service until two thousand and six at that time after an interview he was referred to an immigration court on fortunately for him he obtained poor counsel and due to the ineffective assistance of his counsel he lost that case basically severe malpractise took place and that individual the attorney was actually suspended by the state bar my reopen in two thousand and eleven to the still the board of immigration appeals accompanied by the two thousand and eleven application for asylum which serves this as the foundation for the motion to the board the board will not accept the motion without an underlying application for relief our position is that the board looked at their case and they knew that the nine hundred ninety three application had been lost and the government did not oppose the reopening of th malpractise on petitioner he did not even know that that was a baseless appeal until later on so effectively plaintiff was left not really even understanding because he didn't even understand what and never filed any applications for relief ultimately the court ruled the immigration court ruled that for failure to file any applications it was deemed of and therefore he lost he therefore was incurred were it wasn't he didn't lose it's good quality counsel have been provided at that time whether there could have been i think it has nothing to do with counsel i mean he's claiming a past persecution fear of future persecution in a country that he's returned to more than twelve times during this period so it kind of undermines his the substance of his claim you are he he did not return to quantum all or twelve times he crossed the border to mexico a number of times correct because that was where his wife and children are never before the immigration for in one thousand nine hundred three there were signs in my question did he tell an immigration officer under oath that he had returned to guatemala two times he did not he indicated in the immigration hearing that he did not s that and those names were never made available to him in the immigration court here he didn't have access to those notes he didn't know what the assessment said nor was his counsel provided an opportunity to examine   i mean he's subject to the one year but yes you know the question is what piers does he get a relief from the bar because of bad lawyers or whatever and i still haven't gotten past two thousand and six once he discovers he has a bad lawyer why took place that same attorney then had petitioner file which essentially was a frivolous application to the board which took another two years the board did not want her decision on that appeal until two thousand and nine there the application for asylum that was filed with a motion to reopen can be found on pages five fifty through five fifty eight of them afraid of laughter i see ok that was the two thousand lucia stated he returned to guatemala twice yes your honor this court has long held that there is a presumption of regularity when it comes to official actors acting in their official duty and in this case those also three zero eight there is an actual written oath that the petitioner signed and then there's also a signature of the interpreter indicating that they interpret it accurately from english to the petitioners native language was a spanish thousand and one and the position i've been that about the asylum application it's a two thousand and eleven the position attempts to argue that it was because of extraordinary circumstances of an effective assistance of coun his client the credible evidence in a position or to not do so here the petitioner omitted from his two thousand and eleven asylum application a very important fact and that fact was that he actually witnessed his father being killed and while the mala prior to because at because after witnessing this one thought this one instance he him and his brother fled because of fear of that they will suffer the same result that their father did best the point your honor we're not sure when his father when his when is actually his father died at one point in time in the hearing he indicates that his father died before he departed guatemala and he actually witnessed it during the  car interview he indicated that his father that he learned of his father's kidnapping five days after he left quantum allah so there's a sense to be different accounts of the reasons why he departed guatemala and that adverse credibility finding that i did make an alternative american determination on the asylum yes that the petitioner was incredible and even if the asylum application was timely found which it was not in to record was the regarding the two thousand and nine motion to reopen was it five twenty forty five eighty four and five ninety two to six twenty two going into our opening grief and again just to clarify when the motion to reopen will sit in two places it is your honor there's a sector two separate sections it's fairly comprehensive because the motion to reopen included the actual motion to the board has to be accompanied by the actual asylum application so not the case and was not filed in two thousand and eleven it accompanied the motion board's do not open did not grant motions to reopen without accompanying substantive merits as to what there was why are they open what are what's the potential of this case having in the success that entire package is what was heard by the by the immigration court in two thousand and eleven but what happened in two thousand