eight the second occurring in two thousand and the most recent occurred in two thousand and three and the issue is whether petitioner is time barred or numerically barred from filing the third motion to reopen third or fourth  the third one third motion yes ok but issues the minutes that she is not the american way or time barred for several reasons the first reason is that the ninety eight and two thousand motions filed by former counsel should be construed as change country conditions motions and as such as the court is aware that is an exemption or if you want an exception to the the numerical bar  circumstances here if the court assumes that the ninety eight and two thousand motions were not changed country condition motions and they were made for other reasons the exceptional reasons here would be ineffective assistance of park counsel in failing to inform or advise petitioner of the consequences of filing a motion to reopen for whatever reason   as a result of former counsels in action so to speak so that this would be the theory of ineffective assistance of counsel i guess by analogy to the criminal arena where a defendant immigration law i think it's fair to say that understanding the immigration code and regulations may be a kin to mastering the internal revenue code and its implementing regulations and so the question becomes what standard do we apply to a competent immigration lawyer in the community i mean does he or she have to sit down and counsel the client on all of the intricacies of the rules and regulations that govern the administration of the immigration laws to does he have to warn the alien for example that any future criminal conduct such as the commission of an aggravated felony or getting three misdemeanor dui convictions that are then treated as a felony in california might render the aliens subject to a subsequent deportation does that then all become fair game for i see claims i would something is time barred number barred and we don't have you got a case where there's an exception for stupid lawyers i would i would submit your honor that the matter was not it would probably cover that that circumstance if you do have ineffective petitioners brief rather that does address that where petitioner was prejudiced by the actions of an atari or someone who is not in the capacity of a lawyer and prejudices the the  do we look to in order to get to adopt your theory that the failure to advise the petitioner in this case of the number and time bars in the future constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel sufficient for us to declare that it was an abuse of discretion for the board to refuse to reopen after the third petition assuming that there is no particular precedent that is a pleasurable to that situation i would invite the courts here to make a new president here don't know but under two minutes you can reserve if you are sure i reserve of course you thank you thank you we'll hear from the government limit the use of motions to reopen this is certainly the case we have three motions to reopen have been filed in this case and furthermore this case is alien is now on her third petition for review before this court and the alien has been here that it was done without her knowledge however we would submit that even if that was true it still fails to explain it the board pointed out the filing of the first motion shrilled than the motion filed in march requirements for for being able to pull to be granted equitable tolling when the alien was fully aware that the first motion was filed the elling was fully aware that this court issued the denials of the first motion just set forth furthermore your honor the point that she claims that she may be eligible with the board may have erred in fine and she was not eligible for the battered spouse exception the court found that that did not apply in this case because of the fact that she never to meeting an application nor was she even eligible under the relief that she would seeking or the battered spouse  the fact is that the fi in the motions to reopen may have stopped the clock on the amount of time he could file because they were based on country conditions we would submit that the first time the government's ever just a couple of points briefly your honor if in support of our argument that the ninety eight motion should be primarily construed as country conditions related motion and if the court further assumes that there is no number barred to filing those types of motions the board itself made specific language reference in their decision treating it as a country conditions related motion and i'm referring to the letter from the police department that petitioners submitted in support the motion and the board referencing explicit language in that letter with the inference that this was treated as a country conditions motion if the court does not deem the one thousand nine hundred motion as country your argument i have to say are you surprised me with the change to country conditions argument because i didn't see that in your brief i read they see it in the in the board's order but i didn't see you make that argument in your briefs to us you know unreasonable burden to place on counsel immigration counsel and sound practice to routinely advise petitioners potential consequences of following a motion to reopen there's nothing overly complicated about