reopen on the grounds of either ineffective assistance of counsel or change country conditions in fiji secondly whether the board committed due process violation by failing to consider the merits of the application motion rather and summarily dismissed in the motion on open where the record clearly shows that they suffered at the hands of former counsel it's been it's significant to note your honor that the board in ruling upon the two articles addressed in the two thousand and two but also included articles addressing the conditions in fiji after two thousand i believe there are articles dated two thousand and two and beyond addressing this ongoing situation and featured with that in mind the titian wrist admits that this motion not only can be construed as an i c motion but also as a change country condition would have concluded that this is in fact an ongoing country conditions motion in addition to an i c motion the i c motion was premised on the fact that former counsel did not submit or supplement his own motion to reopen i believe in two thousand and two exceeds rehabs in one thousand nine hundred nine rather he did not to supplement his own motion to reopen with the fact that there was a two thousand two which is a significant  argument if there's ongoing strife after two thousand that is documented in a motion to reopen the board committed an abuse of discretion by failing to address to to address that matter in the motion to reopen part affected these petitioners correct that's correct and if we look at the motion to reopen i believe the board summarily dismissed on the due diligence there was a bad counsel after mr god i did not timely attempting to obtain the record of proceedings from either former counsel or from the corner from some other source unfortunately former counsel was not cooperative in providing the record of proceeding and so in order to properly prepare a motion to reopen the time lag of the year that respondent refers to and their opposition is taken up by the fact that present counsel was unable to obtain all the documentation to do a proper motion ever provided us with the records so on the one hand if you consider that there wasn't due diligence in filing sooner than later we would submit that present counsel would be in a dilemma do you file an incomplete motion to reopen and possibly misstate the circumstances or the or the history of the case or do you do you wait until you obtain whatever you can obtain and then proceed with filing the motion we would submit the diligence is met here in this particular case we would also submit the due diligence is not an arbitrary timeline construct that is the case by case analysis and that in this particular case investigation and trying to obtain the file constitute the reason why this course not necessarily around or he had the opportunity to go before the board request additional time and he was aware of the time in addition to he was aware of in two thousand and four i believe when he signed on as counsel in this case and was able to present an adequate reissuing out counsel copies of the ministry of records so they can file timely is there a single former lawyer who does immigration asylum cases who has a more notorious record than situation in fiji and i may be wrong about the first time documents which included the two and issues that were incredibly similar to what he submitted this time this was the response you know material changes to the country and petition him self even know it is brief which i believe is the second motion to reopen this  the third two in thirteen years then it's two thousand seven from things again on another to which has the same type of and i thank you the exact site but roadblock general political unrest that is the fourteenth to a nineteen year maybe i'm wrong but  a well no i mean there has to be an actual showing persecution discrimination itself does not rise to the level of persecution and then turning to if i may the two thousand and seven brief comment here on page thirteen of the two thousand five motion reopen that can be found in a our page eighteen quoting from the last paragraph since the two thousand to the future of fiji has been uncertain et again that alludes to the fact that the articles not only addressed the two thousand coup but events happening subsequent to the two thousand coup if the board had taken the opportunity to view those articles in perspective they would have surmise rule that's where you have widespread ethnic unrest and discrimination as you do in fiji less individualized showing not more is is only required in that situation terms of a well founded fear counsel for the attorney general you have coffee yes and if you'd like to respond to the case counsel give you five days letter brief not to exceed three pages if you don't have to but if you decide to you'll have that  thank you both for coming in today you know not every one of these immigration cases is well argued this one was by both sides so i think you like the case just argue it will be submitted for decision