concern here was not simply that the actual take was five years but that your client concedes taking much more than ninety days even after e had a new lawyer and he and his new lawyer went through the transcript of the former hear that of that occurred on october twenty one twenty sixteen and the motion to reopen was far more than four months later we why isn't that all by itself sufficient to show lack of diligence well your honor in responding four months was taken even after the alien had stopped relying on his former lawyer and the deadline is ninety days well four months is bigger than three months seems straightforward well she's going to have it in one day finally at the end of december twenty sixth teen i said look i've had enough i have to go proceed to the parking light the reason that i had weighed in the reason i think that really where i would sort of see where his claim i think i guess cemented was the lack of a response from her had she responded for instance with a letter and unfortunately waiting is just fatal when you've got a ninety day clock ticking and mark my question for you is very similar to the question i asked two cases ago the district judge says this case is resolved why don't you filed and then within a matter of two or three days a motion to reopen was filed this court had recognized that that doesn't really give  the offending former counsel really a meaningful opportunity to respond and i relied on those cases to give her sufficient time now  again as i saw it i think that i really wanted to get a response from her i wanted to see exactly what transpired because there are parts of this case that unfortunately only i felt that it was except the bill under the circumstances to give her that time if she said that she was going to send it to me which she did she never did  long but i think that that sort of a different factual situation at this point what i really wanted at this point was some explanation from former counsel as to what happened i think it would have been highly relevant  his case warrants back will telling one of the allegations that aides put it in the letter was involving a third party who have called n delegated all communications to this third party this notarial and that delegation of that communication was pretty removal and it was post remov l and i think that that is a fact that i think was really misread mis apprehended by the board of immigration appeals i do want to further guess you agree on is that the former attorney did concede on the record that she had erred by not getting  blaming entirely my client and putting sole responsibility on him with respect to the fingerprint requirements so this is april eighteenth two thousand and twelve he's leaving that court room essentially being chewed out by the immigration judge immediately after that there's a meeting and there is third party there compote his cousin there is an affidavit in the record with which the board of immigration appeals does not at all discuss does not at all even recognize mr compost states in his affidavit communicated about the fingerprint issue so there's evidence that in fact there was representation going on she was doing some sort of remedial plan that didn't make any sense and during this ninety period when he should've basically been apprised of possibility of of pursuing the lazaro motion she decided to do something that i find out she don't understand what she was trying to  and pursuing his ineffective assistance of counsel claim the most important point here is that petitioner waited nearly five years from the issuance of the removal order to file his motion  demographic judge also advised petitioner of his ability to appeal and again i would just like to point this court to the ism bron no decision which says it sets up reasonable misses of the standard so the question becomes whether it was reasonable for the petitioner to wait those five years before filing the motion to reopen here the government argues that it was not an  discretion for the agency to find as such responded doesn't have anything further lest the panel has questions here you know the ruling look i think you can well thank you very much case is taken under advisement and the