may be absolutely right about that but the problem i have and tell me if i'm if i'm missing the boat here but the problem i have errors in the b i first decided the case in february two thousand and two it specifically adopted four of the record contained expressed finding on that decision we're going to gratian judge noted that the only reason petitioner had given when asked specifically at the hearing why he couldn't relocate within guatemala was that he was afraid because where his brothers in fact had to be located apparently successfully and where the country report explained that girl activity was concentrated in remote regions away from the capital it was reasonable i submit for the immigration judge to find that the government satisfied its burden of showing relocation was possible the main point i'd like to make here today though is that the board did not air in denying reopening because nothing that the tensioner asserted in his motion to reopen that prior counsel should have done differently would have changed the outcome of the underlying  court's cases is that the gesture has to show prejudice in order to get motion denial of emotions reopened reversed the only thing that the titian or step in his motions re open justified reopening was the alleged ineffective assistance and the only things that cut his prior counsel should have done differently were two things one is clear up the discrepancies in the record about the identity of his father and to apply for relief under the car even if prior counsel had done exactly what the motion through and says he should have done alleged ineffective assistance unless you can show he was prejudiced by what he alleges his proconsul did wrong there's no justification for reopening and his motion to reopen doesn't say anything about the relocation issue so because there were three adequate and independent two to grant really i agree completely that this court in this proceeding is reviewing only the board's decision denying reopening and not the underlying decision but i think that again i would try to take that a step further because petitioner here is in effect trying to get this court to review the entire record of the underlying proceedings that's not the proper way of proceeding in this petition right and that's where you i'm sorry and to the extent you bring in relocation so are you  i agree completely with that finding i think that it's important to keep in mind that when you're reviewing the denial of a motion to reopen that the review is very narrow the review is that as your honour's pointed out right now he's trying to make but i gree completely with that i decision this court would have been limited to considering whether the record compelled the contrary finding on one whether what he saw for gross level of persecution to whether it was on account of political opinion and three whether relocation  closer to scrutiny of the record on denial of reconsideration than it would have on in the first place and that in effect is what petitioners trying to get this court to do is emphasizing in this court the incident in which the girl is allegedly shot him and his brother but petitioners motion to reopen it doesn't say one word about anything that is prior counsel should have done differently with respect to that issue so i don't think that it makes any sense in this court for four or petitioner to be able to say in fact that the board should be reversed for denying reopening on a ground petition or himself never urged as a grounds for reopening and that's just a basic principle of appellate review and mystery of exhaustion and when you're reviewing the denial of a motion to reopen wh disfavor kind of motion because the finale principles it's even more important to you to focus narrowly on what the motion to reopen said prior counsel should have done differently what grounds the motion to reopen said justified reopening and consider whether th and here i think the board correctly found that they did not i don't see just like to point out that it's not just that the motion to reopen itself didn't say anything about the incident in which the gorilla shot at the fish and his brother neither did the reply in support of motion for a open neither the petitioner declaration neither did the minister's request for a stay in connection with the motion to reopen neither the petitioners bar complaints under matter of all of those materials only said that prior counsel should have cleared up the record  i guess the record will show on that what it will refute it that it doesn't mean i mean my the other side of the coin on the narrowness of the heel is that we may be confined to the two bases just sort of the mountain tell me why if you can find yourself that you think that  there's a reasonable likelihood the outcome would have been different well the judge also found that it was very important that there was nothing that i think she said directly tied the petitioner to the person who claimed to be as father and