but this is a case involving a political tolling the board of immigration appeals had denied a motion to remain and and reopened based on ineffective assistance of an immigration consultant and the key issue in this case is the fact that the b i issued its decision in two thousand and ten since that the ninth circuit has issued several cases ninth circuit held that the be a had abused its discretion in denying an untimely motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance and the key issues in this case are  that the petitioner is prevented from falling for a benefit because of deception fraud or error and acts with due diligence in this case the petitioner had detrimentally relied on an immigration consultant who had misrepresented himself as an the check that was altered has a date of cashing a february the eighth two thousand and eight the motion to reopen was not filed until june twenty eighth two thousand and eight days your honor the evidence in the record is contained in the department of motor vehicles i feel security administration letter is dated april fourth two thousand and eight when the petitioner attempted to verify her status she went to the d m v and the legal presence verification unit was unable to determine that she satisfied legal presence also when the record is a fraudulent i ninety four card prepared by the by the immigration consultant he yeah explain to me why the letter of april fourth two thousand and eight from the department of motor and one ten to one sixteen that marina ein january eighteenth two thousand and seven again at her office and gave her seven thousand dollars in cash and one money order in the amount of two hundred sixty one dollars for government fees and january eighteenth two thousand and seven  gave me yet another appointment for january twenty second two thousand and seven to pick up the i ninety four carried showing my legal status in the us personally with you concentrate on the question i asked you where is the record  i was wrong in saying that on the merits of her application regarding political persecution she hadn't carried the burden of proof that the live on what was wrong with the finding of the b i saying that she hadn't proved a reasonable fear of future persecution the immigration judge only found minor inconsistencies in her testimon judge knowledge that they were not material and did not go to their her and her claim at the date that she arrived in armenia for example as a child which should not be held against her because at the time she was a child and her husband's mistreatment an the petition because the board gave reasonable consideration to miss carr pensions evidence and her ever changing story regarding her claim of fraud by the immigration consultant that she dealt with well you  board determined under hernandez because this carpet chain was aware that the immigration consultant was not an attorney that the she she had failed to establish the exceptional circumstances that would justify for that reliance on an attorney and reliance on a non attorney are very different things reliance on an attorney is reasonable for someone even someone purporting to be an attorney is reasonable because one expects an attorney to have knowledge of the laws they're licensed by the state board and subject to discipline they went to law school or prayer at least past the bar where relying on an immigration consultant is an unreasonable action because that person is not required to undergo any training and there's no kind of indication that they have the qualifications to make these decisions in this case the question is whether there was the immigration consultant cost petitioner her opportunity to follow an appeal by telling her not to file an appeal but in this case the immigration judge at the hearing before the immigration judge in way back when specifically told the parties that an appeal would be due within thirty days plus three of when the decision was issued that decision was mailed to miss carr pensions original attorney before the immigration judge and ms carpets and concedes that she received notice of the decision from her attorney though under her not as your position was it was unreasonable as a matter of law for her to rely on it all you know where she knew the individual an attorney and where she had been told that she had the right to file an appeal what if she didn't know what if that that particular set of facts is disputed is it sufficient for the immigration judge  to tell her can you do you still does your position still remain it's still maintained if that's the sole factor upon which i can fly that so yes i believe it is your honor in hernandez issue was an alien was trying to recall the facts was issued a notice to appear and was told by a consultant that they did not need an attorney and they continued to appear in court process a and the immigration judge repeatedly told them you have the right to an attorney but they continue to decline to exercise that right and the court found that they could not make a due process ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on their reliance on the non tourney's advice when it was in contradiction to the immigration judge the government's instructions that she had such a right i think it would be similar here where here the immigration judge petitioner was on notice by the government that she had the right to an appeal yet she declined to exercise that ri based on the vice of an on attorney and in this case it's worth noting that the her story kind of changed as it went along in her initial motion to reopen filed with  the immigration with the with the immigration judge she simply said that she had a an unnamed immigration consultant was the individual who gave her the advice of not to file an appeal in her brief to the board on appeal she maintained the same thing that it was a you get the language just right she said she had an attorney type consultant but she never indicated that she believed that it was an attorney and she never indicated that she was told that it was an attorney only with an affidavit attached to her motion to remain did her story change and she for the first time alleged that there were actually two individuals a male and a female a female name marino who was a translator or paralegal i believe who she said worked for this man named nathan who she was led to believe was an attorney but that story was not the story presented to the immigration judge or to the board on appeal and it was not unreasonable for the board to conclude that she the  advice she received was in her belief from an on  turning about the merits of her cases are of little persecution so well one thing is important to remember is we're not looking all the way back to the original immigration judge decision finding her not credible the only question is whether she presented evidence of change country claim later that she was a supporter of  and at the time of the two thousand and eight election there was a february two thousand and eight election in armenia which was controversial and there were protests in march of that year which did result in some violence in armenia but the evidence submitted by miss patrol the board acknowledged in its decision on page six of the record that there was evidence in the documents she submitted indicating an arrest relating to those elections but determined that she had failed to show the united states based organization of supporters of patro c n n and that letter indicated that she was somehow involved in the group in the united states but it failed to mention any sort of violence against party members or any risk of harm that she would face were she you to return to armenia so in light of the evidence we do not think the board abused its discretion in denying the motion to reopen based on a change of country conditions