immigration appeals basically gave no indication as to whether or not they considered in the fact that this is the council claim or the due process claim and in the sense of from the decision without petitioner knowing exactly what attorney we have an attorney who was neglecting his client's case kroeger for years not even doing the minimal the minimal which would be a background check for his client which was an essential element to one of the three prongs first suspension of deportation which was the defense that this person was asserting this person prejudice and tainted the court hearing in which the judge placed blade claim mostly on the petitioner and all that  because of the attorney's negligence we believe that there was substantial presence in this case that the application was not an application that was even we believe even looked at by the attorney in correct them in terms of the the address that he had for his client in which he allegedly sent notices regarding the preparation of the adequate preparation of the keys and looking at  not even the existence of the most part for temporary numbers of the cult the judges were asking people to pay taxes with also security numbers they were asking for taxes and giving them some type of benefit of a cruel good more character when in she does not have a criminal record he would have found out that not only that but he also would i think the not sending the background checks for years is just one of the most blatant examples of the neglect he had for this case all this attorney cared about was receiving three hundred dollars an appearance keeping no track of the client file no preparation adequate preparation to reach the level of competency and this was  consequences she had the judge not only deny her on the statutory grounds of good moral character which could have been in and of itself a basis to deny the suspension he went a step further and went and held a hearing even though he really didn't have to because he denied her and statutory ground that she needed to know more character he went out and then i don't discretion and then he went out and denied her on suspension of the court on the extreme hardship based on her fifteen years that's more that's more than almost a third of more than a third of her life this is the person who's been sending money to her parents abroad for what we don't know that was not developed that w extremely exceptional extremely unusual it's a hodgepodge of elements that set forth in matter of anderson by the board of immigration appeals and this court in fact in the case called contreras born feel to set the stage for when she assume what it is and that's probably because i asked in another quick question here's my question at the end of the line in the killing what's necessary i'm wondering if the immigration service has anything about his  honor the record is not clear if you need an attorney was also a paralegal and there's nothing wrong with working with a paralegal and having a paralegal prepare the case but that is not the outcome determinative issue in this case what i mean that may felt do a background check the basis of a background check is predicated on the person going in and providing her fingerprints that is one thing that the attorney cannot do for her petitioner have to do he cannot provide her fingerprints he can abstract the davids he can ask her letters he can have her i'm correct it wasn't a mistake it was deliberate fraud on the tax returns and the social security number the profit on social security number she used was not hers that's not what  was irate about it was a fake daughter who didn't exist for whom she invented a social security number so this was not a way to work the legal i mean there's no way could have been excused it was simply she invented a doctor to get money more money back from the government i understand your argument that it wouldn't make any difference ok so i'll take her back and the problem i have with with this case and others is that the ineffective assistance of counsel claim was not presented before anybody found other words are nobody decided that issue so on appeal we're especially hearing your argument for the first time on why it has magni difference and we're hearing arguments for the first time for anybody that in fact it could make a difference counterproductive for everyone concerned and if there's some way for the v i i or the immigration service to or the office of immigration review to design some ways to do that this it was not a motion to reopen situation we did the best we could with gathering the information and unfortunately you know a suspension takes time to prepare you have to interview witnesses you have to go after wit you have to find evidence for your client that's just not something you prepare in twenty days it's not something you prepare and thirty days sometimes it takes a full year that the judges get to prepare a proper case and that's what should have been done in this case and i believe that a competent attorney can make a difference in this case because of the this is not the highest standard of exceptional extremely unusual we're talking much in hardship and we're talking about a standard that congress specifically abo