unfair result for it was just the fact of a reasonable lawyer and by counsel right and that kind of claim and a direct appeal from an i j to the board is not subject to the most out of procedural requirements which are for collateral attacks on orders  in general sure i understand i understand that but this is a isn't this they've got to say this looks to me like a highly discretionary kind of decision compared for example to a district judge decision of god whether to relieve a party of an admission under rule thirty six in one of the civil discovery rules or  but what about the i read the board's decision as saying you know since the kinds of policy concerns that drove the for the board to adopt that was out of procedure in collateral challenges to reopen also apply in this kind of a situation because you know since what you've got is new council attacking old council and you know all right we would submit that brought them together why is that unreasonable because of the two separate inquiries and the courts know that the why should they be separate because there are some i think some and to some distinct analytical reasons attack the facts may not be before the board to determine whether in fact what the alien saying is actually true but that sounds to me like the ninth circuit position that in essence we don't have to follow the sort of procedures if   i'm trying to suggest is that it seems to me from the board's perspective there might very well be good reasons to treat them is as so closely related because in both you know since have you counsel attacking the suppose bars in the interests of fidelity whether it's a collateral challenge or a direct legal if i may or explain one of the reason i think what's important to understand why these are two separate inquiries is we're focusing on the unreasonable efforts of twelve conviction for the controlled substance offense and explain why that conviction combined with petitioners other concessions on admissibility gleason's conviction under for the controlled substance offense of two thousand and twelve is really what white is causing more problems for him than then he admits and so i think it's helpful to state the board didn't decide the case on that well the board does say though that that he's conceded these three other grounds of inadmissibility and that he's not eligible for cancellation of removal which is really the relief that he resident answering no to a question whether he's ever been a recover acid and that was incorrect he was a rat in fact arrested set aside the question of whether that was actually a crime involving moral turpitude then he's convicted for a controlled substance offen two thousand then he leaves the country in two thousand and fourteen and he comes back to the border with a green card that he that he never should have gotten so this is this is what gets him in trouble this is what lands him in proceedings because normally a lawful permanent resident is not regarded as seeking admission when he comes back to the united states except section eight u s c eleven zero one a it's a thirteenth  provides that if if he's could committed an offense identified in section eleven eighty two eighty two he is treated as seeking admission and so that's why he's charged with inadmissibility under four charges for so they're all under eleven eighty two crime involving moral turpitude controlled substance procuring or seeking to procure admission by fried and not in possession of a valid entry document he's what what the remedy that congress has provided for people in his situation is a waiver of inadmissibility under section eleven eighty two i but but to get that waiver you have to show extreme remove all for his two thousand and twelve controlled substance conviction the agency properly concluded consistent with the reasons concession that such relief was not available to him and then we point out that section twenty i mean at page maybe i'm just not getting this but i don't see that argument and i would wish that you would address the case as it was bridged in particular would you address what we have always should deal with  this was how the case was presented that was how the case that was presented to the board now and on review we have these elements that are nicely laid out i want to be relieved of my concession by concession was wrong here are the egregious circumstances but in the brief that he filed before the poor heard what he says is that my attorney's performance was an adequate and then it makes kind of a vague argument that the that he made regarding inadmissibility are enough to take him out of eligibility for the waiver under section two hundred twenty seven a one each anyway which is what it what i was trying to explain to get that waiver anyway you have to be admitted to the united states that's under the plain language of the waiver under twelve twenty seven and because he made these other concessions that it's he's if this a ball and hasn't been admitted he's not eligible for the way think you are in full you think too brief points to the first point the grounds of the board an immigration judge decide in this case were on the basis that because he was convicted or that determine that he was convicted of a crime of moral turpitude or took the concession wrong and that the board of immigration judge should not have access did it then this needs to be sent back for them to actually analyze under the propre facts the rest of those issues were being told that the last class decided that a proper argument the board where she made these points that it was erroneous concession that it was incorrect if you apply the modified kind of cork approaches which show that this was not a crime for more turpitude and that the attorney was an actor than recently so it's all this argument points were in the right i think it was presented as an erroneous concession claim i mean i think you could read it as if the concession was improper and you know the council immigration council didn't follow