two parts to my client's argument one of course is that the court has jurisdiction to consider the incompetent representation argument he's made even though he didn't present it to the board of immigration appeals below and the second part of the incompetent representation that he's alleged here rises to the level of a due process while a student and therefore calls for remaining to the board of immigration appeals so that they can reconsider its the fifth the rationale of this case as well and by that i mean in the granados case the reason the court held that it had jurisdiction to review the issue even though it wasn't presented flow was that a motion to reopen which had been filed by counsel with the board of immigration appeals was filed by the same lawyer who was guilty of the incompetent representation and therefore he was unlikely to reveal his incompetence when he filed that motion and that stance was unable to here as well and it consists it goes way back really goes back to when my client mr mendez who was only seventeen years old when it came to the united states didn't understand the language into immigration consulting firm in los angeles area there because it advertises itself as experts in immigration law so that there were no tyree o's who work there in latin american countries or no terry was supposed to be an official who understands legal for a second i'm sorry he had he gotten his hearing what relief was he asking well that's an interesting point too your honor because one of the things that mr maguire did not tell his client was that he simply was ineligible for permanent resident could qualify sunday were lawful permanent resident status and so should have said to his client look you can't qualify for asylum that's clear get voluntary departure leave the country and when your wife becomes a u s citizen you'll be able to return to the united states as a lawful permanent resident he wasn't told that subsequently of course according to ghent according to his declaration when he didn't hear from mr mcguire he tried to reach him we found out that his telephone was disconnected and went to the immigration office to find out about his case there was some obviously some sort of confusion there because he says that he was told not to worry about a case that takes three or four years and we have declarations in the record  counsel who work in the los angeles area that things do take that long in the immigration context in the meantime because his he wanted a quote qualify for permanent residence through his wife she went to the immigration immigration firm not the immigration from a so called law firm to find out about helping her husband become a legal resident mr mendez himself went there and though he unfortunately stated in an intake sheet that he had never been in a removal or gee protection proceeding no one ever talked to no lawyer ever talked to no lawyer ever spoke to him at any time subsequently even though this is a law firm and presumably he was going there for legal advice competent lawyer who had reviewed that document and who would have interviewed in advance i'll be happy to file a motion to reopen with the board of immigration appeals and see what happens to that i think that's the gist of my arguments here and list court has another question i gather would be leaving under an order of deportation which would make it more difficult for him to come back certainly would delay his return to the united states he would have to apply for a visa through the american embassy or consulate in mexico but how much longer would it the latest return to the country  way of knowing that he could as a person who's been deported cannot return for a period of ten years unless the immigration authorities grant him permission to come back sooner that application would have to be filed in a court in as part of an immigrant visa application in mexico then have to go to the immigration office in mexico from the american consulate that issues of these that and there's no way of knowing how long that would take it could be months it could be years and there's no guarantee of course that it would be granted which could mean a set if he gets to move if he gets rid of the water of deportation and things voluntary departure like that where he would still have a problem because there's another provision in the law which says that a person who's been unlawfully present in the united states for as much is one hundred eighty days or more than a year if the unlawful presence is more than a year then one cannot return to the united states for a period of ten years unless he gets a waiver of that requirement based upon hardship to american citizen wife there again no one knows whether an application like that would be granted and if so how long that would take to be granted so there's a real risk of significant separation from this family if and the only issue really becomes whether or not mr mendez has exercised enough due diligence to hold the deadline on order that we can then reaches other claims however in order to consider most of the argument the counsel now raises for mr mendez we have to showed up to a nice office in one thousand nine hundred seven after february one thousand nine hundred seventy and he asked somebody at a window generally about immigration proceedings that person didn't receive his file didn't look up on the computer but generally told him immigration matters take a few years and not to w carried the case all the way through was responsible for the delay in this case there were two sets of attorneys and now his daughter is the third and that break between two sets attorney there needed to be a sharing of information from the client to the attorney and there was not it was for seventy years one hundred eighty on this issue of personal responsibility and what mr manders did or didn't i think it's important to look at the entire context of what was going on here i mentioned earlier you have a young man from a strange country and i've asked myself the same question if i were a stranger in another country and i had this kind of issue who would i rely on i would go to people who presumably know what the law is all about and can advise people correctly mr mendez went to three different places and got terrible advice all three times i think it was understandable and reasonable that he was would rely on these people to do that nobody told him about the consequences of not filing that motion to reopen timely and the last part about the fate of his failure or alleged failure to show up for the hearing if you really wasn't whether he failed to show up but because he did show up it's a question that he did appear in that's consistent with the jurors on a case it's not that he failed to show