arguing the particular merits of the case percentage of the renewed motion that is however i would like to respond to a pretty one particular argument that was asserted on page three of the government's respon that motion because i do believe that there is significant overlap with the merits of the petition that i was prepared to argue on page three of the government's response or opposition briefs on the bottom and on the f issued in the city and at the same time this court for the rule that all pending motions which included the pending motion for a stay that was filed partly with that first petition was denied as move and therefore we would submit that according to this court that's your client's first attorney had ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to smith any of his daughter's medical records or evidence regarding his wife's inability to support his daughter and then when they move to the b i and they are challenging that ineffective assistance of counsel they do the same thing but they don't think that's an effective assistance of counsel but they say that the first one was ineffective assistance of counsel i'm having a tough time determining why one can do the same exact thing they did in the front of the i j a in front of the b i and you want to calm ineffective assistance of counsel ass number one and number two based on i have to find under the standard view suffer hardship beyond that which would be ordinarily expected to result from deportation and i still don't have any records how i'm going to find three forty five at third is a two thousand and three case out of the circuit and pointed out that the b i is not required conclusive showing that eligibility for root relief has been established rather it has reopened proceedings quote where the new facts alleged when coupled with the facts already of record satisfy us that it would be worthwhile to develop the issues further at a planner or hearing on reopening are you claiming counsel that please be treated  no you are that is what is her condition which is so unusual in weeks and exceptional that only treatment in the united states of america with the best medicine vailable no world can can treat  that i had not found you she's still to show prejudice she still has he still has to show that there's a possible ground for relief and i don't see in the very very severe and it can be symptomatic of other things that that's not even in the affidavit and that's what i think that's the problem that i'm seeing yes i think it's quite clear from the record that  was was hoping to reopen the matter in order to make it a fuller presentation and was laboring under the impression that all they need all she needed to do was make it worthwhile so to speak to reopen and i think that's why has to be something more that's and that does that is an ordinary consequence of you know being deported to mexico as you might not have the best health care compared to the united states good morning her honors me at the court my name is melissa lehman on behalf of the government in this case the decision for of you should be denied the single issue before the court is whether the board abused its discretion in denying his motion f but he need only demonstrate possible grounds for relief and he can sustain his argument if he can demonstrate that such ineffectiveness may have affected the outcome of the proceedings in this case petitioners plain is that his former counsel failed by failing to submit documentation of his clean therefore in order to demonstrate that his counsel that his case may has been affected i if he were to be removed in mexico i would that the affidavit definitely does not support that argument however there's court has stated in place well and there well in the honest truth counsel isn't it true that the if you look at the affidavit there are no new facts that were known to the i j correct your honor and therefore the question if in fact you don't give the be on a motion to reopen anymore than you gave the i j a at the bottom and you call that ineffective assistance of counsel you wonder if he had included additional evidence to support his case he may have he may have been able to support his case ok let me ask you about something else the government number argues that  failure to depart by the voluntary departure date bars him from any form of discretionary relief why is that is there in actual stay in fact in some other case not that i'm aware of your succeed on this case i don't know exactly what the timeline would be however what would happen in this case is unclear or has not clearly stated what he intends to do if you were whether his daughter would remain here or not and his his wife who he has acknowledged does not have status whether she would remain here or return with him as well it's unclear from the record