if i understand right there's two motions to reopen the first one he says i never knew about it and your argument directed to that is it's an abuse of discretion not to reopen it the second one it looks as though it's more than one hundred eighty days after he actually personally received the b a s decision deciding his first motion to reopen so it looks like that's a real problem for your argument if i got the facts right i'm not sure that i do is the first motion your honor with the motion filed by the individual who is representing to be an immigration representative don't understand a lot of gate that your time is told until you get a really good lawyer who can solve your problem for you if it seems like you've got one hundred eighty days from then yes right about to start contention  n a lot of these cases you have a sophisticated individuals who go to someone to get some service and if they get burned once i would be reasonable for them to be reluctant to trust somebody else and in this l please the court my name is jennifer like body and i represent respondent the attorney general this case concerns the denial of a motion to reopen to receive and you know essentially deportation order not to denial of a motion to reopen for  credit that's that's right until january thirty first two thousand when really he denied the motion for a new car and now the reason that the motion for a new car is not at issue is because that's a denial with a motion to reopen when we're talking generous tolling provisions that ninety day period had passed by the time the motion to reopen to rescind was filed on september twelfth they were really only talking about going back to the in abstention case and if you look at the i g his decision i think it's really significant to look at the law that the image immigration judge sets forth in his decision and he talks about due diligence and equitable tolling and that applies when the alien lacks awareness of the results caused by the petitioner actually knowledge that he was first believe he had vital information bearing on the existence of his his complaint on january thirty first of two thousand that's when he knew that there was a problem and actually if you look at his affidavit he really so he knows that right he knows he's been he says i know i was ordered deported in of sunshine and i went to the attorney i asked for my money back i told him to fix the case he knew that there was a problem and so what he did is he tried to find another lawyer and he did or an immigration consultant he goes and finds another immigration consultant immigration consultant the immigration consultant says ok everything's fine i filed  you he keeps telling him everything's fine everything's fine and then he says that page six of his declaration that after i received the decision i complained to him meaning the second immigration and he returned my seven hundred client not that he knew that he actually had a claim for ineffective assistance but he had vital information and so what did he do to continue that equitable tolling in the immigration judge says you didn't explain to me what you receiving the notice of the court's decision and i think that's where he's saying look there isn't any fraud there isn't any misrepresentation about that two thousand decision you look there was a problem then and so so the time  go back to the first page of the decision right where he lays out the procedural history he says you know you were ordered deported in absentia and you filed a motion to reopen under the car and and that was denied on january thirty first of two thousand and then two years later you fire file your motion to reopen to recent right and so if you look at his timeline and then go back to the analysis page where it says you know he didn't indicate there was any delay in receiving the two thousand decision so that that's vital information bearing on the existence of his claim because the immigration judge talked about that in his legal part of the case where he says you've got to have vital information so we can we can say ok implicitly what the immigration judge is doing is saying i'm tolling this entire period let let's look at it from from that perspective he still didn't file within the one hundred eighty day period so even under the most generous tolling provisions if we start in january eighth of two thousand  still untimely and so even if the immigration judge's decision isn't as clear i think it's clear that his his decision that it was untimely is correct  petition is supposed to follow and you take one hundred eighty days from when you know everything you need to know in order to seek relief and you see if you get it within one hundred eighty days when he knew what he needed to know in order to seek relief that's right is that right that's right your honor and this fellow really knows affidavit i can't quite put my finger on the dates whether it's ninety seven or two thousand when he knows his lawyers messed up and he has to do something if he wants to stay in the country well i think that the immigration judge said that was two thousand that that's when january two thousand you were three thirty first two thousand that's when he absolutely knew that there was a problem that hadn't been fixed previously whatever the other attorneys had said to him you know so then he has to file some motion to reopen within six months of january thirty one two thousand that's correct and when did he filed a motion he didn't file his motion to reopen to re absolutely certain in january of two thousand i just don't understand it and how he could continue to get a quotable tone well your honor the what happened with the attorneys in fact it could be an attorney a different state or city state as you have a non attorney representing someone in california it's a possibility as attorney in another state the law that says you can wait for the department of consumer affairs and i frankly never heard of the department of consumer attorney for his declaration attorney gather the information but that wasn't enough when was that what they could you put that would have been in march two thousand and two thousand and two when he prepared the declaration am not aware of a case that says you can wait for the departed though so the department consumer affairs disciplinary authority you're either not attorneys either that's correct if they're not attorneys you can't fall apart now you could file with the state park california before you could it and certified with any with any agency yes the secretary of state of california for example requires immigration consultants to file bonier for registering there's no evidence in the record indicated these individuals are immigration consultants that the department process which basically shows that the petitioner are serious and had willing to charge a guy who is facing not just behind his back and the lawyer gets a chance to respond and if it doesn't apply if the person is not covered then i can't see that you have to wait and if you don't have to wait you really can't wait well firstly just making a determination as to whether or not the individual is an attorney again this individual an attorney however your honor that the court you know that there are czerny's that practice immigration law in california that are not california attorneys on federal law allows that and you know that you know that the big problem you know there's a big problem with immigration