hours this case is about whether or not the timeframe for which this motion was filed should be equitably tol weller's let me stop you there because there's really no time limit on a true serious money reopening that is true iran but the board would have ar unfettered discretion in order to determine whether or not that should be reopened and this court may or may not have jurisdiction review that based on a well our case was pretty clear that when the board w one could say that that was suggesting to the board that they are to exercise their their own authority and reopen but on the other hand when you read it carefully they also the motion also seems to be asking just a straight motion to reopen on the basis of equitable exceptional circumstances warranting equitable tolling of the time and wearable limitations on a regular motion to reopen with then the petition at page two and also the show of cause which did discharge the order to show cause that three and eleven through eleven i seem eleven through fourteen petitioner did assert both arguments at eight u s c twelve fifty two eight two d this court does have the power to review the denial of a motion that is that was filed timely because the timeframe was august it was obvious they say that there was an unreasonable there was no showing of diligence during that period of time by the petitioners to petitioner first discover that there was a problem in july of two thousand and three according to his declaration which has been held as fact by all parties including the board when he met with offices of kaiser and patchy he could not of reason we known before that that there was a problem the board points out that he should have known when he was informed that there was a dismissal of the appeal of the motion and to dismiss this dismissal of the petition before the court in two thousand and two september two thousand and two but he was told that it was because of the merits of this case that this was a problem not because that all three of these things were filed in timely so in his belief he's relying on an individual who supposedly know the law who's telling me your case is a week but i can follow another motion to reopen for you august eleventh ninety seven when the motion was filed in this case it was july second two thousand and three and we filed a motion aug thirteenth two thousand and three but we're talking almost exact same number of days when the actual notice that there was a problem occurred when they were asked to be deported between september of two thousand and two and july two thousand and three theories relying on his representations that he could files for more things that their case is weak that they still had procedures to to to pursue their appeal and i don't think it's unreasonable for one to assume that as the low is retained in ninety nine and finally they were notified in september of two thousand and two that this is a two two year and three or a month time frame all this case itself has three years and four months before this court this petition received which would have been july two thousand and three even if you say that she was aware that there were some attorney for two thousand and three until july two thousand and three  and therefore the motion had never been filed the third one and that's when they realized he charged just in her thirtieth two thousand and two for another motion and nothing has been because this check has been cash realty there isn't an issue here regarding ineffective assistance of counsel that's all off the table question is what did the board do in its most recent decision and what the board didn't it's most recent decision as following the pattern that this court is directed to follow is it look to see tolling and it looked at to a sponsor reopening out what ike the end of that discussion is and you look at petitioners brief brief to which respondent has responded just for his way the first part he's waived equitable tolling entirely he's wa was involved at this briefing with this whole proceeding because they unfortunately use that term and it confuses the approach that's taken here but i i don't think you can say that the briefest they have totally abandoned any claim about equitable told challenge to th to challenge to the boards finding guarding diligence whatsoever the actual finding by the board that there was no showing it to do due diligence is not challenged in the brief whatsoever without that there is no challenge to the board's finding getting it equitable talling unquestionably vital to his future beginning in one thousand nine hundred ninety and went to a consultant who said he could help them find a consultant file something they went through proceedings before the immigration judge and last that should be a clue that there's something wrong they filed a person they filed an appeal with the board now it's not clear exactly when or if or how the petitioners knew that they lost that proceeding but we do know that they filed another motion to reopen after that based on cha circumstances so you might infer from that that they knew that they lost the first one if their first appeal to the board now the appeal to the board was untimely itself that insults you to cause them to inquire why did i lose what is going on how i'm suspicious regardless of how much you trust this guy he's done something that has lost me the case now if you look back to rob because it's the this court's case in which all of these other cases flowed from in that case the soon as they lost the case they went and found an attorney and said well that was this case what went wrong and the attorney said this is what went wrong you got screwed in that case they did exactly the right thing in this case we go years and years in events and events each was looking at two things there was an allegation of ineffective assistance of a consultant and there was an allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel with the board that is regardless of all that other crap when you get down to that when you find out that you had a lawyer that there was a lawyer representing you thousand and three and you don't stop it that way and say well wait a minute as they indicated in their in their affidavit they were surprised by that that after this long history of  fuel a case before the immigration judge denied he'll deny motion to reopen denied the ins tells you even though you're you're consultant hasn't told you the ins told you you haven't got a pending case and that doesn't cause you to say this based on you know they just don't have a good case and so the consultant tells them we're going to file i'm not file another motion to reopen we're going to add some of these new information to the evidence in the record is a shallow shall we say which in that respect the only time they ever tell you that they were told why something happened was regarding what the action of this court in the ninth petition for review what happened is after the after they were informed by the the board by the ins that they had no pending cases they went to the immigration consultant and sometime after that a position for review was filed with this court when that petition for review was done i sometime later months after that petition for review was denied because it was in fact untimely the thing went back to the immigration consultant for some reason and the immigration consultant told them that the position for of you had been lied because their case was weak that's the only time they ever tell you that they were told that the reason was the case was weak they didn't they don't tell you why they thought their original case why they thought their original appeal was denied why they thought their motion to reopen for change circumstances they don't make that allegation they don't give you that hint and in fact they didn't whether or not they just didn't ask m record is i didn't know they didn't think about it didn't care they had a work permit and that was all that that's all they cared about they had this thing going over them that this court has held is really really important and actually caused people to hire and they failed most people who are immigrants and live within these communities you know we see a lot of cases where they rely upon these consultants or lawyers who are in you know who are just terrible  is available but to do that you have to apply due diligence you have to show that you care you have to be involved in your case this is an extraordinary remedy that's not supposed to be applied routinely just because there is fraud going on out there or just because somebody makes a mistake this is not that circumstance this is the circumstances of the hundreds of other cases that it makes that same allegation where the respondent simply the petitioner in the case of the alien simply didn't show any interest at all in figuring out what was going on as long as he was still here and as long as nobody was knocking on his door and that's not the way our legal system or sure that's not what the constitutional doctrine of equitable tolling is all about at that  doctrine is based on something that requires the person to be involved because the person to be engaged and that's exactly what you see in all of your case law even in the two baria where the essential finding after that was that  been cashed in november of two thousand and two all of these things are is a is a vast volume of or diligence the kind of diligence that you don't reward with echo and there are any cases that stanford has for the most recent case that you see in this court part of this year right case is a case in which as soon as the even discovered that there was something wrong with it went to another attorney and that attorney required four months to comply with the requirements of was out and and there for that period of time was told for that period of time in this case it's clear you don't require one law to comply with alien simply wasted five months knowing that he had an