petitioners trying to legalize their status after being in the united states for at least a decade and being in the hands of an unscrupulous my cardio and then an attorney that worked with one resulting appeals their decision denying the appeal cannot be consistent internally because the pictish inners presented evidence of  harsh it to the united states citizen child a serious medical hardship that required an emergency room visit and which was supported by a doctor's letter you know was a doctor said he didn't say that it was crucial and i want you to i want to just want to make sure that i got this right and one time your client said you know maybe was ok and the doctors i said they indicated that he probably wouldn't get the kind of treatment in mexico that he's able to get here but i'm not sure and this may go right to incompetence of consul i'm not sure the record supports the seriousness right no the the second the second lawyer didn't raise the that issue either right i believe that didn't bring in the any information there at the time of the hearing the child's health was bad the evidence after june two thousand and three when the doctor had seen the child the help was bad and it was emergency room receipt that didn't have any information suggesting it was asked not so how how would an effective attorney at the first hearing establish was a later wired condition or a new and a previously undiscovered condition the ninth circuit discovered the board made a decision based upon the timing of the child's condition in that situation condition existed at that time i believe that it was the collateral in the motion to reopen and certainly with the motion to reconsider and i would also urge the court consider that when they did not consider the declaration state bar complaint the board one of three things either they made an adverse credibility determination on a motion to reopen which they shouldn't have done and discounted her testimony and or they failed to good morning your honor may it please the court my name is kelly wallace and i represent the respondent the attorney general it's just going straight that the motion in their motion to remove that their son suffered from asthma at the time of the cancellation here and therefore the board did not abuse its discretion where it found petitioners to fail to show that former counsel was ineffective in raising the issue of their son's medical condition and that they did not d that the consul was incompetent for not making a motion to reopen and the only issue we should consider now is was it prejudicial and conscious that was the borders really never considered the that the child actually suffered from asthma at that time the declaration submitted by ms to my own korea state that her son suffered from asthma and that he went to the emergency room for treatment due to respiratory problems but it does not state when he s attorneys for all of the allegations of misconduct and while they did submit letter that there was a complaint to the state bar there was no evidence that it was actually filed it's there that there be evidence in the record of a filing with the state bar yes there is your honor and this is important because we need to develop an adequate factual record and we need to discourage frivolous and and false claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and by requiring an actual filing with the appropriate let me just double check that real quick because i'm not sure that was actually something that they addressed as far as being a concern they didn't it was not denied as untimely i know but it was not timely and that's what i want to find o there was prejudiced to the petitioners they did not present any evidence in the motion to reopen that former counsel could have presented all the evidence was well after the initial hearing and the doctor's note indicates that he thought the child and considering the evidence submitted with a motion to reopen in conjunction with the evidence already in the record it was very reasonable for the board to find that the child would hardship would not be exceptional and extremely unusual they submitted no evidence of the conditions conditions in mexico to show the child could not be treated there the doctor statement says that there would be injurious damage to his lungs from the inability to attain adequate management of asthma while outside of the united states was very broad statement and almost too general to be relied upon because obviously he could seek medical treatment in many other countries other than the united states it does not specifically address conditions in mexico he said that the doctor said it child needs  medication there's no evidence that that medication is unavailable in mexico for the record shows that they had significant assets in two thousand and one they totaled over two hundred seventy eight thousand dollars as the board recognized in matter of and  as significant assets do ease the transition from the united states to match the cow and in this case would likely be enable the petitioners to provide medical care for their child further the record shows that ms tomorrow creo to her credit has worked hard to educate herself learning to becoming proficient in numerous computer programs and obtaining a commercial driver's license these skills would no doubt help her provide for her child there therefore it was not unreasonable for the board to conclude that they did hardship to their child application if the court has no further questions i would just briefly conclude by saying that the petition for review for denial cancellation should be dismissed as the court lacks jurisdiction and that because the petitioners failed to show that former counsel was ineffective or that they exceptional and extremely unusual hardship bother to do the clearances there's no question that she was ineffective and just focusing on the issue of the timing of the case and the medical documentation supports the hardship at least six months after the final hearing that could have been raised by the first