effect two years after that counsel left the case during a period of time when the applicant was represented by competent counsel nobody moved to extend the h one b visa and under the after the in company council left was not justified under the circumstances so if you can address that st issue for me it would be very hel i don't believe that the denial on the beat out was correct or justified and i don't really understand i understand that they said we think you should have done something for everybody who had competent counsel period of time where nothing is done and no excuses offered for that's what's concerning me in this case can you want you to address that period of time tell me why why we should care about that time as even if it's know bad lawyer if you will we have your client saying i relied on this price you anything and the agency has good credit that what you your argument seems to be that as long as you're represented find some weird it's not like they're sitting back doing nothing for a long period of time and for that i don't know what i would expect i doubt if i don't know mike i don't need to save anything out but i think i have but i'm happy to answer more questions and and help the plaintiff well two points st of all the court held that the agency had improperly ignore fail to consider ineffective assistance of counsel as a basis and in this case agency absolutely  secondly ms peters was kept in the dark by her attorney and it was the excess full extent of his representation that was that issue not anything beyond so she was under the impression because of his representation that the extension requests had been filed in this case the parties the company as well as mr kaji didn't know that there were problems they did rely on that the years but i'm not sure it's actually depending on where the legs and mr solomon left the scene and it will two thousand and twelve right and the extension of stay request that that issue here was filed in july  th teen so that's more than three years bat in its decision the agency pointed to him be the that filing of the sack and h one b extension request which was highly respected with great experience in immigration law and they were making significant very sophisticated legal arguments challenging that i won forty and it is petitioners burden to demonstrate  at this point because the i won forty was living in its completion and to us with counsel do not appeal that that's not a decision that can be overturned or effects and when we look at it within the context of there being a six year limit under which someone can have an h one b visa that makes that a very difficult obstacle that the right to simply weren't able to overcome and ultimately even though they're phrasing it with respect to the denial them because they did not act once you are not only out of status but now you don't even have anything that can bridge the gap for you to adjust your status that's a dire situation they needed to act and they didn't address that at all if i could circle back to the peter's example even while she was represented by let's say assumingly ineffective assistance of counsel she was diligent in reaching out she was able to show she reached out to her congressperson and the company did the same trying to find out why the agency have rolled on the h one petition and even though here i i would respectfully disagree with that characterization he absolutely relied on bad legal advice up until april th while the actions in the record or what  effective assistance of counsel attorneys make legal arguments it hurts my soul to say all the time that we don't have a want and then surely if someone said to him don't apply for  that suggests or explains it was the actions of the attorneys that heard that that they provided bad advice to them and some person but there's no answer so i wanted you to get to something we didn't get to cover with your friend