why he's with me in the courtroom today and his wife and two children are currently outside the courtroom alex van entered the united states over six years ago and timely filed f fact he filed two affirmative asylum applications one of which was actually denied before his stay had expired his the final matter had remained pending for over four years with the asylum  not too long ago his billings and mother are all either permanent residents or citizens of the united states and of course the president because he relied on a reputable attorney who assured him through various letters including letters to the detention office and also letters to the board of immigration appeals not to mention a letter that he provided that alex on should keep in his glove officers raided alex sanz and jennifer's house our early in the morning of february to hand that was really the first notice to him that in fact what the attorney was saying to him was that was really not the ca and she retained my services we immediately filed a petition for alien relatives we also filed a hey b s petition with the district court and we requested an emergency filed a frivolous application and fact it was not frivolous to say you would be reviewing that decision and that would certainly allow l a times for remaining in in a process where he could speak the green man or the reopening of this matter so that he could adjust status based on his marriage to a us citizen and pending and close to being approved i wonder if the titian the main issue is by by not having any apparent avenue he think that the board of immigration appeals decision it's properly before this court without at least issuing a briefing schedule for us to brief the asylum issues that were holding issues and certainly to perhaps requ remember down to the immigration court but certainly at the time when we filed the hay vs petition it would have been to let that the ninety day expiration period had expired for filing a motion to decision so that the petitioner could have an opportunity to actually petition this court for review that would certainly be an option as well in that case the only thing that the attorney did was file the appeal one respect of a lot of his clients but certainly this situation is analogous if not even more fact driven given given given given the very real real idea and i think you have that in the excerpts of record that th not being informed by having a right to counsel effective counsel and not being informed of the fact that you have a certain number of days to file an appeal not being informed that you're married to a u s citizen and you have a right to lozada i believe the petitioner set out what he determined to be ineffective assistance of counsel but it was more of a miscommunication misrepresentation argument as opposed to an outright shredding don't think it's necessary he has not challenge the deliberately of the asylum decision on the district court he gets petition there is no challenge to the asylum decision he is simply going forward on his new marriage and thirty applications for his benefit was filed he overstayed his visa the week he would not get the government doesn't believe that he would qualify under two forty five and under two forty five i would need a i one thirty that was filed on or before april thirtieth two thousand and one and his i one thirty was filed on feb seventeenth two thousand and four even if he did you know satisfy the same criteria for eligibility for his immigration status those are very strong burdens to overcome so even if we had the approved i wanted thirty even if he could qualify under some sort of say and two forty five for eligibility then prepared to enter into an agreement in this instance in this case he has but it's my understanding based on their representations today that he has filed a motion to reopen when d a s d s h s department of homeland security bureau board of immigration appeals reviews the evidence they themselves are able to make that determination but today at this point the united states attorney's office does not have the authority to  which was family which is filed very late however your honor it could have been filed on time he was married in one month before the ninety day deadline grand for that motion to reopen and i need to just for the record correct the government's brief at page twenty two we had actually calculated that wrong and said that he was married two days after the deadline had run but in fact he was married one month before the deadline had run for his  l a motion to reopen with the court of immigration appeals he did nothing he did not file the island thirty until the day after immigration officials found him and he was about to be deported  because any alien could go could get married and file an island thirty after the final order of removal and then ask that everything be stayed and that's exactly what congress specifically did not want when they filed the life and then the acts of two thousand they specifically said that for aliens to get are married post order of removal the state does not received a lawrence and a bag and baggage letter which indicated that she had then removed from the country and he was required to report to officials he has never never made any allegation that that signature was not his or that he did not receive didn't know about this i got the letter in the mail what do i see if he did not do that in this case and that's why the government is not  it could've been done yesterday could be done today he's technically today still under a final order of her mobile thirty motion to reopen is pending and could be done today i actually don't believe that the government attorney is very knowledgeable about the facts of this case because the first thing that she indicated was that the petitioner never challenged the validity of his asylum decision and the opening application you would also be privy to the entire decision which talks about how the judge was amazed that position or was able to get documents which the judge had requested well it's sort of you do if you do who even work without authorization and have overstayed for over seventy years and i have clients like that you are forgiven because they are married to a us citizen and they can show the bona fides of their marriage so i believe that if this court converts it into the petition for