provided information and therefore your motion is denied so clearly it was a night not based on the merits but based on a procedure that was not even cited or referred to anywhere so after we were denied prematurely denied the motion to reopen and we filed a motion to reconsider reasoning that surely the court would see an error because the basis of the  you've got to be here motion to reopen this is not going to be granted because it really doesn't have its rules of order and has to be filed in order to deal with the bag and baggage where are you getting the stick correct and then competent interpret but you know give to do it because on account of your motion being here it's probably you know well it was it was not supported by evidence but it very clearly stated the grounds on which stated to such a degree that it was not necessary to file a brief or that it could have been decided even without the briefs in this case we have the motion to reopen which is not an appeal but a reconsideration of the entire case and there is no there was no deadline that was missed in terms of filing anything that is the difference on considering your the motion to reconsider are we in a position to look fully eprom merits of the original issue or are we limited in some respect motion have not been made in the first place and that brings us back to the motion to reconsider and the fact that it was denied based on singing based on a miscalculation of the ninety day period and no other reason i petition was not given all the time permitted to file a document when the motion to reconsider was ruled on there though the reason you may want to save some of your time so that we can you can respond after we find out how the government responds to go to the accordionist very well your hon giving an order to show cause since the brief that was the motion that was filed specifically said they intended to file supplemental materials within ninety days so where do they get the authority to cut off a ninety day much if he hadn't filed if you hadn't filed anything you could not have taken any action correct your honor and because they filed something for a collateral reason which proved to be appropriate apparently be given the way t interplay works between different parts of the government well i know it could lengthen i'm sorry they filed a statement that laid out the issues and said specifically we are going to file the rest now the case just before we were told by your colleague who isn't here unfortunately to appreciate this that what the petitioner should have done in that case was not withstanding he had the option to file for and request a joint the motion should have filed a protective motion which everyone will agree has much less chance of success than the drawings and so they are because they didn't take the step of finding something that was protected and show due diligence they get nailed here they show due diligence and are very candid and say what they're going to do and the board responds by chopping off  own regulations give a someone ninety days in which to file and this is not someone who just filed a slip of paper they said we're filing and this is what we're going to be arguing and we will be presenting them within the ninety be completed in one filing at one time as opposed to with two separate times while you're on the regulation and the board can barely read it to say that you're entitled to one motions real assistance claim all wrapped up by early january and the real thing that they seem to be waiting waiting for was an interpreter to translate the letter they wave from december twenty third and so they i believe they received an interpreter in early february the interpreter translated the record by february twelfth or thirteenth and they waited until march thirteenth march didn't complete the declaration to long after the ninety day period had run so that right there was not diligence petitioners certainly could have filed at least by january all of the ineffective assistance of counsel issues and could have raised at least even the skeletal motion to reopen they did fall didn't tell the board anything about what type of claim they were raising other than get any business done with anyone between about december twentieth and january after cat and polysporin like that and was with foreigners a lot of not going to go home over the holidays so they're not going to be around for several weeks certainly something could have been done to make sure the interpreter got the job once they had an interpreter in early february council then states that they couldn't get their schedule smashed until mid february surprised how many motions we get from the government to  able to get things done but you know i'm always here aren't we hear your argument i'm still concerned about the argument between us about how these things work in real in real life i'm looking at the what's printed with the notices to the quality of the bar and all of that and we were seeing good immigration council before it now who are trying to comply it appears with the rules and regulations so i looked in this case and it says you have ninety days in which to file an appeal ok for file a motion to reopen so she goes to the step and you quarrel with her rationale for it but to me it sounds like you know she's doing everything she can do assure that she's going to get relief from d h l she where does where did they get the notice to put them on notice that you're just as in the prior case where do they get the notice that when they file  front what they're doing that instead of not eighty days they now have the whatever days it could have been the could have been denied the very next day if the you know you get somebody like you know we don't accept but if the don't conform b i could have a clerk at the desk look at it and say no supporting stuff denied so they would have not only been preterm added by several days but by would have been the motion to reconsider the only thing before the score is whether the board properly denied the motion to reconsider not a motion to reopen and here the board clearly did not abuse its discretion when it looked at its own regulation and interpreted it please support the government seems to be speaking from both sides of its mouth saying that petitioner should have at least fire old evidence on ineffective counsel which would have been piecemeal paid by the department of homeland security for the immigration court and the nonsense that came out in the records it is no wonder that the immigration judge said that the entire proceeding was incoherent she couldn't and listen to the proceedings i went with her and we went through every single line and this is how she determined words were amended words were not provided and words were misinterpreted s believe that once the motion to reconsider was denied fourteen days early that the reason that the petitioner should have submitted the documents at that time it was that was that would not have been possible because the decision on the motion had been made the only choice would have been to filed a motion to reconsider no documents would be expected once a decision is made on the motion and as far were issued there was state by the board of immigration appeals we advised we would submit the material within ninety days and we would have had the court not for close that opportunity to use the motion to reconsider that was the one that's before us that's correct that was that was a way of getting the documents yes that was the only