that afternoon and may please the court my name is kevin crabtree and i represent form thank you we are a number of their troop occasions a number of issues we feel the easiest way to dispose of this case in our favor is by focusing on the board's failure to address mental health within disorder major depressive disorder and journalist anxieties whether this evaluation very specifically with the sentence he is experiencing all of which clearly would be relevant to preparing an asylum application trusting an attorney and filing the motion he filed where agency regulations require the application to be submitted as evidence in support of the motion the sentence that the evaluator noted included  his classic the characteristic avoidance symptoms of waiting people places and things that remind him of his past trauma which was very severe there is long term distress that substantially interfered with is normal daily in function because of his diagnosis but what what changed and why is it given with his diagnosis that in two thousand and seventeen after seeing the television news report about his former attorney that he was able to overcome those issues consider this evidence is the problem that they didn't leave any indication they did that there is and called the hold or the court found it where there is potentially dispositive evidence and all if the government's efforts give me and your response to that is if that's correct then the court should find that the decision was not the support of my substantial evidence and that's actually in a way better for us because we don't want it to be remanded for further board occasion would have been joining a pro one hundred and ninety eight when that went through that was the one year deadline after the fact we brief the issue of there's actually a crossover in this case between the one year bar issue and the diligence issue and that's really the crux of our case possible path where he that he will be entitled to relief and so is your badge which is what prison was just asking and that's in my notes too so could you speak to that in just connect the dots and tell me what is your client's possible path to especially to the asylum claim let's start with  then of a guy and there was a seven year delay and if it's tempting to just look at a number sixteen years seven years but that's really not what the law said the court's precedent requires a look beyond that for example in other guy and the person during the seven years spoke to another attorney not that ineffective initial attorney by another attorney who said oh just hold tight wait two years maybe the law will change and he complained that that was part of why he delayed and the court said well you met with that attorney a few more times in the fall and didn't file until february two thousand and eight so it's a year from assuming the triggers news report it's not you know two thousand and one when he knew something was wrong it's still a year before he files something and he has had a relationship really with an attorney since at least the previous july this is a clear fact during that time when he was not consulting at all my point is that the mental health feature or something where he is due diligence for the motions to reopen the st review whether a person and there's particular circumstances would have become suspect of the broader error in its government's position that no later than two thousand and one either in march when the he's he's a he's a reasonable person i think about what he's nineteen he knows he's been deported but he doesn't have to be on notice that there is some have some reason to suspect ineffective assistance by his lawyer that's very different well you would think a reasonable you one shot i don't take a lot of your time on it but i don't know why you're staking out this position say could you enli proceeding the earlier when it was his father who was involved because he was a child when it all again and it doesn't just recognizes none of them it just says a reasonable person would have somehow realized that there was a problem and he  i think we checked on that i think my notion that they addressed it to his father isn't right if it's just his father his mother instead and i think there's one other person one notice right not not a that the government's position that he didn't take reasonable steps into doesn't want when he returned to the united states and he said he knew something was wrong with his case or if he doesn't seventeen after his other news is a television news humanitarian by law either because of the the beard protrude nature of the pap persecution or because he would suffer other theory of harm that doesn't necessarily have to have a nexus to protect the characteristic so in cases like that