prejudiced when he has demonstrated a denial of the right to competent counsel mikey's your honour's is about ineffective assistance of counsel from the outset credibility prejudiced and possible grounds for really tell me other any cases in the immigration context you cite some where there was no counsel and prejudice is more or less presumed is there any case that you can specify to us where there was counsel in effect and prejudice was pres show some what would you show with the president in this case was the failure to prepare the clients for the case the prejudice is basically that he that the counsel did not assist his clients in the case whatsoever that in fact but them in a worse situation it's very it's not translated i'm having a hard time i think another part of your argument is that he didn't adequately prepare them for the questions and the answers that they were going to have to replace but the problem i have is trying to compare what it would have looked like had the lawyer properly prepared the case versus what it looks like on the record that's before so how do we value the fifty one of the way but one focused one incident versus another and there's clearly a difference but the question i guess is how we don't know what the explanation is right so how do what how do we know that he had from the outset but are we back to the presumption problem because you're asking us to infer that there is an explanation that would help reconcile the inconsistency is without us knowing what that explanation is it is correct that there  should have been an issue if there was going to be a finding of negative credibility should've been addressed by the immigration judges should be given an opportunity to explain reconcile the differences between his wife's testimony and that of of the main and the petition mislead the court got a good beyond for the response to your honor's the only claim this properly here today in our opinion is the credibility finding but if i can back up a moment in regard to the case well under the case law you have to show that it was so when adequate that they were not allowed to have a full hearing and present their evidence but i have to state that is not this record we have hurt repeatedly in briefing and now these are all unsupported assertions about ineffective assistance of counsel and this transcript shows an attorney who knew his case in and out he did not say to the immigration judge and i can give you the transcript if you wish he did not say i'm not prepared he said and he had been in the case for months he said i didn't realize until last week that the hearing today was america's year well he got to work and the record shows that his clients came into his office gave him some documentation he wrote a multi page substantial hearing brief which he submitted and he submitted nine exhibits all of which were written it he didn't say i'm not prepared he said if you don't allow the exhibits in now my clients will be prejudiced they were all accepted and it made it the immigration judge it was one of the not translated the immigration judge only took exception to one article in spanish and the attorneys to judge all you have to do is read the headline it just shows that this lady with this name died in a helicopter crash well the judge never quarreled and nothing in his decision is a challenge to that fact the testimony and the other exhibits plainly show that this lady that was his mentor did so don't lie so it and i mean even i can read that headline it's  full briefing and the petitioners with new counsel made of the no vote argument and regulations allow but they made a deal no argument about the underlying denial as if it were there's nothing in this record that would support that bald assertion that's made now that was made at the board the brief of the board and the brief now is telling devoid of record citation and if you read this transcript and i invite the court to look at it again this attorney knew his case in fact he knew it so well that the government's attorney was complaining that he was leading us clients too much now leading questions don't indicate ignorance they don't say tell your story if there had been some let's say explanation for an inconsistency that wasn't presented before the judge and that when i say i have to i have to correct myself when i say there is no declaration i partially in error there's no declaration in regard to preparation and complaint about are being affected at the hearing the declaration is in the law sought of contacts and addresses as the brief to the board addressed only you didn't call my daughter you didn't file these documents until the day of the hearing well they're filed and third you didn't file a brief ok reason out the window i mean that's done the transcript plainly shows that at th  the testimony of the husband took forty five pages the testimony of the wife twelve the the attorney says in regard to the daughter your honor we don't have anything further but he says page three twenty six it's not quote it may i consult with my client to see whether or not it is in english and he did not object to that clear proffer by counsel so there was no problem with not calling the daughter more over we've never heard what she could have proffered she was a minor at the time that might have made a difference or clarified anything in terms of preparing the petitioners what what they're really complaining about is that the wife sort of let it out on cross examination that in canada the claim her husband took the lead in both countries and it's clear to me on this record that they don't talk a lot and that there are some send the earlier question your response that was right her question so that there was an opportunity and a declaration was filed but it didn't cover all of the areas that the petitioner is now urging people for us on a dispute that the wife of the governor was killed in a helicopter because it goes to the reasons of the suspicion of why she was killed the fact that it was a political motive because she was speaking against the of the ruling party in mexico the p r i so i think that the article which w was about three pages long single spaced how do we know that because it's not translated and corrected and did you handle the brief on appeal to the b yesterday why didn't you include a translation of the document when you had the opportunity after the case was real may i also wanted to address that the counsel indicated that there was only there were leading questions and that indicated there was a familiarity by counsel of his case it was a five year gap of issues that were not present whatsoever counsel jump clients cases that the government wasn't challenging the five years he's been in canada there was an argument that he had an opportunity to permanently put down roots in canada and therefore that should be trac he presents himself blind only to the extent that the immigration judge and both the board gave a lot of weight to the fact that he had presented an asylum claim that indicated a different incident than the one in the united states a different issue isn't it i mean that's a question of explaining the discrepancy between the basis for his asylum application in canada and the basis in the united states i merely stating that because counsel didn't bring that up on direct or even on redirect it's not  to explain the discrepancy and i would just remind the court that in order to if there is a finding of prejudice the court only needs to make a finding that the conduct of the attorneys may have affected the outcome not exist not that the petitions would have prev