already you hear that the immigration judge has an obligation on his or her own initiative to ask about possible ground here when the immigration judge asks a number of times what why do you not want to go back in and you know we can never say it because the one child my so argument today on that because honor but i think it's important to note that what it's asking the immigration judge of the trier below this is of course is a reopening procedure before the court of immigration appeals is to fully explain any opportunity that was already directly and represent the regulation regulation is not requiring the judges to be that specific that regulation actually was in this specific right reg here it was held this court and how is the failure sworn form of possible forms of relief is mandatory and therefore if the court did not do that reversible but the form of relief is different than the grounds for relief it would really blur the wasn't fully explained in their or will now take a look at it and maybe they don't want to impose the obligation on the i j a to do it but if it's there it's clearly a right and it wasn't fully explained for whatever reason  then why wouldn't the justify the motion to reopen i think your honor the government's position is that what the government what the immigration judge would have an obligation to explain is for right to apply for certain types of relief and not necessarily just not th specific substance know that sort of government's position but where is that where is that over the in the face of the regulation well i think it's evident in that it doesn't specifically narrow it down to specific grounds with cases in a recent movies that a bunch why wouldn't that be analogous here but i think it again i'm going to hark back to what i said there the the difference is i think when you said that the judge or that that person in that situation there's an obligation to explain what the person may be eligible for in terms of the general forms of relief based upon for example in the case that i cited which was a deportation case  and the petitioner clearly doesn't invoke it when it's an obvious that in any event the i j a doesn't do it and so now the statute a regulation one of the  biharis adopted as if it wasn't fully explained then that would be a ground for reopening so i'm having a little trouble why understanding why if you don't want to impose the obligation crown why wouldn't that be a basis for reopening when this situation it would necessarily even be an obvious crime because her husband was a lawful permanent resident these children are united states citizen children who who could have stayed and remain in the united states so you could give up her family move back to china and not be exposed to sterilization you sure of that well that's the that's the situation here and this case the judge again didn't have the obligation to explore that unless it's the petitioners burden to prove her case of course if she argument purposes that the i j a doesn't have to act as the advocate ok i'll say it so it's so on certain unclear but she now gets counsel who comes along and says you have a strong case here to make and they go to the b r a and say look now she's represented by counsel and it was not fully explained to her is not something that you know she was aware of and i'm representing her why would that be i then look to this and that is the board didn't find that it was the judge's obligation to explain the exact specifics of what she could have applied for based on her particular circumstances that really she would only know because she's the one that is before the court how they interpret it well i don't think that i've myself i couldn't find their exact interpretation of that but of course also want to remind the court that of course the emotional reopen its review going to the abuse of discretion standard there is no obligation it's not fully explain then that's a basis for reopening and if they fail to follow their own regulation unless they've got a clear interpretation that's precisely what how you're interpreting why wouldn't it be an abus discretion not to follow their own regulations well that would be the case if there was an interpretation such as that but there isn't ok here in little to go all of it further in the council didn't talk about this i think it's also important  on the immigration judge tried repeatedly to get incision to get an attorney she had seven hearings five different times he asked for it to get an attorney in the same individual of course that she which she had apparently retained previously was disappearing and discussed this fact with her this is probably not the person you want a future not a round of course she was concerned with her right to be represented before the immigration judge but if the distinction here as once again has to be careful as to whether or not we should put the obligation on the immigration judge to step into the role of advocate in this case the judge did everything that the judge can do to get representation or to encourage representation of mrs jen in this case and she didn't do so she chose to appear on her own when this claim could have this claim also could have been brought up during the pendency of appeal and she retained you counsel was not brought up before the board of immigration appeals and you attorney was retained and i think it was opposing counsel there's a four year that passed before the decision of the immigration judge this was never brought up to the board but that's time the board could have addressed that perhaps and in brought it up as an effective ineffective assistance of counsel claim in a proper the reason she didn't hire one is because obviously no money and i represent her pro bono on this case and a fall to me for not bringing up this issue during the