to remind you good very good now in the world of suspension this is different from the cancellation of removal case it was discussed in the previous argument back in the day an alien who had a long term physical presence in the i'm sorry what is the prejudice the prejudice is very prejudiced that defined in the legal definition which is that you are deprived of your ability reasonably to present your case that extreme hardship determination for an individual  can say you know i have a child here who's an iron lung or whatever you know arrest for greater things and when they don't have that equipment in mexico and they didn't present that that would be a pretty clear because he is an individual we know this is incredibly high bar to establish hardship and he hasn't done it they do focus on his job situation but it's hard to see from this record how more witnesses would have changed essential calculus but yes he looked like he'd be a great citizen to be honest you know taxes he works hard he got his employer to fly out people to combination what would he have proven that that would meet the hardship requirement for individuals in the context of some of these other cases that the service has already decided in the in the aggregate he would have proved what other understand being has a tremendous amount of discretion around him but i think that there is a tremendous amount of speculation that goes on to be opinions we have a factual affidavit by the owner of the company a company that builds two thousand homes a year in arizona where in arizona right next to mexico he's telling deprivation of counsel no such violation exists in this case there's no liberty interest that's implicated in the denial of discretionary relief simply put the government does not have a responsibility to came in a criminal setting a clearly said you cannot compute the failings of privately retained counsel to the government in a case where there is no constitutional right to counsel there's no constitutional right to counsel in immigration proceed he he examined whether or not there is a right to have a very ineffective assistance of counsel claim to due process violation with respect to this supreme court opinion coleman and it was his analysis that there probably was not that right suddenly we're in this case when it's not generally argued our own governments seem to be perfectly happy to have this either people weren't deprived of fairly important parts of their lives that the claim that the council raises about this immigrant having ties to the community there's no prejudice that's been shown all these facts came out to the board the board had an opportunity to consider each and every one of them even and the government can't say well we we know he's going to be able to get another job without any facts or any basis just to make it up that in order to say that he will be person in the construction industry actually had a knowledge of what goes on in mexico there's no showing that he ever even this is in mexico where that and specifically that he had knowledge of what goes on in mexico what the courts could do but the board reasonably concluded that based on the not going to have a problem getting getting a job in mexico and there's nothing arbitrary irrational or contrary to law about that which is the standard of the busa discretion standard on a denial of a motion to reopen so we respectfully submit that that that there is no prejudice that that's been shown here by just by just petitioner even if even if you think that his counsel was ineffective we would dispute that we also say that it may have been a tactical tactical decision of why this should never came up about his and his american sign the testimony had already come out that the petitioner had sent sends money home to his parents made no representation that he sends money home to his and perhaps the council thought that it would reflect bad on his character because good moral character is a prerequisite of suspension of the importation and perhaps the council thought it would not be good to raise it at this point and only to rely on the hardship to himself so there's no showing that that that this was anything but a tactical decision that it was ineffectiveness it's just a showing that this testimony did not occur and that's not good enough under the present and the change of venue absolutely no prejudice whatsoever he did as far as mcewen pointed out he did have somebody come out from phoenix to las vegas or the other way around las vegas  nothing arbitrary irrational contrary law about that decision i think thank you very much decision not to mention that mr escobar had a united states citizen son you know that could have been tactical i happen to think that in a case where joint harm to the alien the fact is to support a child who is born in the united states is  factor it's a factor but there is no tactical explanation for an attorney to unilaterally transfer venue to take an alien out of his community to one where he doesn't have any contacts for his own convenience and the second point i want to make is this whole coleman argument that constitutional remedy for congress to dictate of humanity and that dictate in title right to counsel is codified and i and i section two ninety two the legislative history makes clear that congress intended to confer that right time the calendar is united states