deals with ineffective assistance of counsel and whether there has been a knowing and voluntary waiver of a respondent statutory right to have such counsel in removal proceedings their case is a little different because the  alleged ineffective assistance happened at the be appellate level rather than in front of an immigration judge this court through the radar versus gonzales case which was cited in the briefs has extended the right to statutory counsel in front of the cia here in the munoz go dina's did not get the benefit of their counsel and they did not make a knowing or voluntary waiver of such rights in front of the judge they were represented by an attorney as th fact pattern indicates they went in regionally they were high reference to quote an attorney they met with a representative named mr lewis at this organization the organization was called j and then enterprises when they learn for the first time that mr lewis was not an attorney then he was a representative only when they went to court and mr lewis brought with him an attorney and that attorney's name i believe was mr seraph and they were represented throughout by mr seraph and they assumed that janet had arranged for mr seraphs representation this is reasonable they hired an organization it's i i guess you could say it's similar to hiring a law firm and you don't know which attorney is going to be representing you sometimes but they did have an attorney represent them which is what they paid the organization to do after their case was denied by the judge they went back to the same organization i spoke to the same representative indicate specifically the words law firm they just said that they assumed that because jane had provided them an attorney before that they would have provided them with an attorney again this court i know has struggled in this circuit especially in california occurred in front of a judge where the respondents in removal proceedings were present and the judge had an opportunity to specifically actually is under the duty in the circuit to specifically inquire and ask do you really do you require representation and the judge is required to obtain an answer yes or no we wish to proceed without an attorney there are instances where according to circumstances the judge is under the duty to affirmative inquire and situations where it seems that the respondents do desire that representation but it doesn't occur however at the appellate level we don't have that quid pro quo the respondents are not physically in front of any kind of a tribune or any person who can personally assure that they understand they are proceeding without an attorney according to their statements you know the statements they desired the attorney they wanted the attorney they assume they were having the attorney and they did not know that they had filed papers only in their name until they went and conferred with outside counsel and that was once their suspicions were aroused they were surprised to learn that they were appearing pro se they did not know they did not want to appear prez say the only difference is that there was no judge or other intervening off already to ensure that they understood they were proceeding pro se and that is what they desire discretion i think it would be to tell the truth we did have some brief conversations about it and on their end did talk to their client but the client was thinking of a different sort of relief but there were the petitioners here willing to go through without him discuss it with ice if they're inclined to explore well that if you read the newspapers the pre and if it happens then that's wonderful of course petitioners will explore whether they can take advantage of that but as it stands here on the merits to reiterate they never they did one hundred twenty representation they never wish to proceed without it this court has recognized that people who do not speak english as the first language who come from different cultural backgrounds do not fully understand the labyrinth of these laws and  how long they lived here the munoz's and been here i apologize i'm not sure for how long but i know one of probably at least that long and they have a child here yes they have significant tires visibility good morning may it please the court my name is monica canton appearing on we have the attorney general on the subject of the morton memo and the morton factor is ice has offered renewable one year administrative fees of removal in this case