these really for reasons favor and in favor jurisdiction over this case all right what about on the first the first test first motion the first petition is not the focus of as we know from the marvelous decision that has a higher standard than the supposed to be applied also provided additional documentation in this case which merely supplement his prior motion and which does not demonstrate i'm officially eligibility for relief in that sense the board is saying that we've reviewed this additional evidence the evidence i said i'd start i  at the immigration judge level where there is no crime the facial standard for the submission of evidence whereas in this case run a motion to reopen level where there is always a crime the facia eligibility for how's that different in terms of the  the the court meters you can but if you find it they found the the wrong standard that standard would have been the incorrect standard would have been the fact the board said and indication that the outcome would be different which is what the words they used which is a little different two that in deciding whether or not there was a sufficient showing of hardship to deny the motion to reopen the board apply the wrong standard to introspection and that an event to send a back to the board with an instruction to apply the proper standard he would have  give a different answer actually your honor i believe that in this case we have they're completely separate we have a line saying that the pitcher has not shown that the out that the outcome would be an indication of the outcome will be different that's the prejudice in the in effect of assistance of but how and that's why in this case we have as we have a competent counsel preparing you evidence as as part of the second motion to reopen and the board of valuating that new evidence as if there had not been a first move is real but instead of this new evidence it's still they had a specific statutory elements to look at to see whether the board reviewed evidence and those were removed in the ninety six amendments and so now what we have here is we have a board considering evidence we have a properly submitted evidence and the boards think this is not enough and there are no standards for this court to apply to determine whether it is enough and a new standard for this court to apply to say whether the boarding gates in the in the sufficient depth of analysis with this court has done is consistently reviewed whether the board has there was a judgment regarding the grant of relief and in both of those cases the board did not reach the substance of the claim they denied for other reasons the first time i think in both of those cases the individuals were applying for discretionary determinations of the motion to reopen level whereas in this case the board which that next level and said let's evaluate the evidence that a competent counsel would provide and they came to the conclusion that this is not enough to establish a kind of fish a case for hardship and for the first time in fernandez this court the standard is always on the facia eligibility and that makes it markedly different from the what was noted in fernandez were not relied upon when the court and there may be some instances where the court tangentially is required to review the types  of of evidence this is a fundamentally different case because the ineffective assistance of counsel occur only at the motion to reopen level is an insular legal issue the review of that motion and the court cannot say that this is enough for