hearing is quite simply is not what was alleged in petition its motion to reopen rather the petitioner alleged that he lied upon the instructions from his prior counsel to not appear at want to because of the b i deny that claim improperly stating that ineffective assistance of counsel claim is just not equate to reasonable cause when the ineffective assistance of counsel claims based upon failure to appear at a hearing when a change of venue is filed that is not what the petitioner claims a petition it was relying upon the improper instructions by his part coun that three attorneys here and it's attorney number one that primarily messed up at their attorney number two however once hired there is some delay in on round two of attorney number two and felt satisfied with the brain but then the question was did that attorney unreasonably delay in doing all of this so with that father few months after that first motion to reopen did comply with the witless sidled effectively by trying to contact the attorney by sending a notice to the disciplinary committee therefore  at the time of turning number two files the second motion to reopen i would say that she effectively complied with the with the claim by attempting to contact the attorney by sending a i'm trying to figure out those are the grounds for and i see from watching them to carry over into motion number three even though that's not the grounding and when they deny motion number three power to deny as a matter of discretion because of the way i understand there's no statutory or regulatory bar but does that mean of the years also prevented from the nine based on the lay in such a case now i think they are permitted to deny they think it's because the lawyers changing venue as opposed to his claim that no it's the latest tell me not to show up so you know here's here's the deal guys like never got a hearing i agree that he has not yet had his hearing the irony the height of irony in this case is if you had a hearing you probably wouldn't be here today it's the delay that now has quite frankly given him a whole new claim that he would obviously be raising to be i a f this courtly man's and actually in my preview with this case i have to say that probably was the more troubling part of th reopen barely did it on his second quite frankly sank to an old address didn't really bother to send notice to counsel trying to find counsel and now we're in the third motion to reopen with a third lawyer raising say what did you say three there were also delays and ironically what seems not clear to me as to why it didn't occur because these were exclusion proceedings he could have filed for a finding that it didn't excuse his failure to appear so what may well be their own frustration i don't know how stunning it's understandable i  he lawyer reads the statutes and figures out what went wrong that they try to remedy lawyer one two and three so it's you know that's really part of the problem as we all know is the nature of the council often at the outset but we are then that's compounded by of course the behaving under a lot of pressure case wise and like all of us they're not always as precise in their wording when we look at it after the fact so it's you know it's just a question of us trying to unravel it and i appreciate your candor and i truly do think do wish i had the ability to argue prejudice here now are we starting to see a trend that the attorney general is having the local u s attorney's office began to argue more of these cases well there was a for the last two years there was a program by which in order to deal with the massive number of cases in the lack of resources namely justice in the office of immigration litigation a number of the cases were sent to u s attorney's offices this being one of them they were sent out in large numbers i think our office now is handled about seventy of them my understanding is that is going to change again