exter things were all over with the administrate of agency if i recollect correctly at these people's lawyer was disbarred yes their claim is ineffective assistance of counsel my problem is presuming the some prejudice to them from having a lawyer who was bad enough to be disbarred for  some lawyers who disbarred because far from being ineffective they're all too effective they cheat so they get disbarred sometimes the disbarment has to do with taking a client's money in a case that has nothing to do with that representation in another case sometimes it has to do with a really terrible representation in some particular case but it doesn't mean it's bad representation in all cases i don't understand how we i assume or make an inference from the disbarment and in other cases that there's prejudice to hernandez marino from having that lawyer if you look at the perhaps you could is looking as to what the ultimate issue here is whether there is produce to the you know to your client and as i understand the record as i've seen it so acted professional misconduct in all these immigration i'd like to get back to judge fisher's point a minute ago if you stipulate argue and all that the attorney here did not do a good job the reality is that the primary issues were raised but even if you had a brilliant attorney brian romero the u s citizen in this case has no standing i mean you look at  versus ashcroft mario versus attorney general three of our cases here say he has no standing so if you have lost bring an attorney in the world how does how does brian romero's hardship really  get you over the hurdle that you've got an unwinnable case here if he can win this case there are no immigration cases left where those of us to this uninvolved where they can't disrupt it by claiming hardship is and they can take it away they can add to it they've done that from the beginning of the republic can you cite this to any authority at all that suggests that congress is constitutionally incapable of stripping the jurisdiction of this court in this circumstance because of the hardship of an immigrant an area by the way we're congress has the greatest authority of the three branches of government in the so you're saying for example in the in haiti is corpus situation which also involves constitutional rights occasionally but strips us of certain rights you're saying that because there's a constitutional claim made that day that law doesn't apply doesn't doesn't what i'm saying is that actually could you repeat your question yeah i'm moving to a slightly different area you've alleged that because there's a constitutional claim being made that the congress doesn't in effect have the right to strip this jurisdiction and i'm using an analogy in in the case of haiti as corpus the congress has said that under certain circumstances the right goes away there's a one year statute of limitations where we are stripped of jurisdiction after that point even though there's a constitutional claim are you saying for example that because a constitutional claim is being made that the congress has no right to do that behavior scarpa sorry i think on that issue i think what you're getting at is  substantively different from you know the right an immigrant may have to view and we're not asking the court to do overturn or to find that anybody who has a right to family unity as long as the child is the right family unity that they can never remove somebody from this country i guess what i'm trying to get you to to wrestle with your counsel is that whether you are u s citizen or not the constitution gives the congress the power to create or dissolve federal courts and to give or take away their jurisdiction in this case that the legislature in its wisdom decided to take away jurisdiction under certain circumstances the fact that there is a unity government unless of course subject to courts questions on any of those issues would rest on its brief filed in the old four case we believe as judge smith pointed out that this court's case law on both of those issues is well established in full close arguments in both of those areas let me let me pose to you with some my mind here at the hardship looks like something that's none of our business under the law i think we don't make hardship decisions that had the hardship is purportedly the hardship of the fifteen year old boy and having his mother and sister go back to mexico at the real hardship is when people get away with being illegal immigrants for fifteen years they put down roots in the country such that it's really wrenching to go back to mexico for the whole family and none of our business either way we have no jurisdiction migrate so far yes right now the one hun that's exactly correct on the one handle on this case is the ineffective assistance and that the the inference isn't solid but it isn't negligible either that this lawyer was a total phony just took people's money and didn't do anything for them as a regular course of procedure so the b r c a did not get to see the final california disbarment of the lawyer is there any point in sending it back to him take a look at that no your honor and i think for the for the reasons point out by judge smith during my arguments that me during my opponent's argument this case really is very simple and you don't even have to reach me the fact of assistance of counsel claim concerning whether there was prejudice or whether counsel performance was ineffective really it's the question of whether the  challenge the basis of the board's decision in denying the motion to reopen in two thousand and four that is that they fail to comply felt absolutely comply with and i don't think there's i don't think they failed absolutely to comply with  say they gave notice to the bar and i think there are some cases the do say is your adversary said that when you give notice to the bar an inference can be drawn that the bar would have given notice to the lawyer have looked through the issues in the past where it is so evident that it would be a mere formality on the board didn't have are you suggesting that if the board had known that this was a disbarred attorney that they would have said oh gee we're not going to address it because you haven't given notice to council and whatever now you're on i think thinks they saw the first and the third prong met and i think it's this court the second second prong is very point i think this out in the initial argument out of my adversary it gives the attorney a chance to say what was the relationship and in this particular case it's even more significant because mr the attorney that they're claiming ineffective assistance of counsel against did not appear at the hearing another attorney did so we don't know what the relationship was his law firm was well i think it's my stats not i think she does say she's associated with or something but whether it's just the let me just think we're arguing over the fact that looking at the substance are you still confident that the board if they were aware that the counsel who really incompetent to the point of being disbarred immigration lawyers and the record at least as i've reviewed it indicates that this is one of those cases confirmed by the fact that the lawyer was  it and decide whether or not it was otto really is the basis for turning the staff and let them make that decision well now just in answer there may be as i indicated by my opening question to petitioners counsel is that i'm not sure this is not an exercise in futility because i'm not clear what it is on the prejudiced side of the process but  applied more to the notice of the state bar in other words if the bars if the turn is already been disbarred then to file a complaint with the bar association seems to be an act of futility and the court can understand that th all what the nature of the relationship was i thought i thought we did know actually the thirty appeared and when a letter was sent to the lawyer by the bar in respon directly on point on your issue or a fundamental right to family unity and due process arguments but making the point that if a citizen is allowed to challenge immigration proceedings against a non citizen family member or it would undermine the immigration laws i mean how could we have immigration laws in that situation how would they be effective again i would i would point to the distinction we're making here and there been a case the argument there was the mere fact that the citizen child had this constitutional right that that should prevent the parents from being deported that's not we're not saying that there should be that kind of broad sweeping rule in every case would you say that when it cases absolutely we do indeed