of the most fundamental right to counsel in deportation proceedings this court has consistently recognized the absolute obligation of an immigration enron was going to be my parting she gestured to this court but i think i'll take it out of context and i think that perhaps the time has come when the court should consider feasibility of applying the rule of getting inversion joining right to deportation proceedings perhaps there should be in those cases that concern you were an individual does not have coun and comes a second time without counsel there should be a panel of lawyers from which the judge can make an assignment and the consequences of deportation are so evident that there have been real paying us has found it to be a due process violation of proceed without an attorney eighteen in the other fourteen they were admittedly of good moral character in the immigration judge joe brown they were totally free of any criminal violations they own a home they pay t the judge said if there was proof of that he might find other wives the only reason he denied them this really was because they stay high standard set by the board of is obvious lecture on that claim should have many evaluated by a professional that professional should have testified their judge then should have had the opportunity to know the way the evidence they did it just that extraordinary hardship he didn't do that the finding meaning the mandate the regulation is absolute it isn't discretionary i recognize that there is a conflict and management of the problem there that the judge cannot go on forever i understand that but this was not the case here they were told to come not claiming in any way that except for not recognizing their right to counsel that he otherwise violated their rights he didn't do that but after he decided the case then for the first time they got counsel whether they got a good attorney or not i don't know but they got me and it was then that i recognized that there was something wrong the regulation mandated an explicit way about this court before the two most recent cases in our you motto shareware years ago made that determination at the when you were must be explicit and there was no it was in way so i a motion to reopen be filed with then ninety days some of that chime was lost before they came there but that was not critical what was critical is if there was a bias if there was miscalculated the effect of the board's decision in monroy all and so we waited and the board dismissed the appeal and that's why we're here your honor and i respect  question in my mind that had they been represented the result would have been different and should have an opportunity for that and i ask this court to remand the page to the board of  twenty eighth two thousand that's when they first the petitions first appeared in front of the immigration judge in los angeles and tell their final hearing which took place in las vegas some thirteen months later on september tenth they were advised of their right the immigration judge comply with the second part of the regulation in that asking them to state whether they wanted to be represented by counsel what the court wanted to just take a simple literal reading of that statute then the answer is yes the judge complied because on january twenty eight that you sort of look at the record as a whole that's my reading of the case anyways you have to look at the administrative record as a whole to determine whether there was a knowing and voluntary waiver in this case you have a delay of thirteen months between and impairing many many times over and over again in front of immigration judges being advised of the right to counsel but on to the specific occasions they will warn you that if they didn't appear down the road with counsel that they would be required to represent themselves that happened in los angeles at the september twenty eighth airing and then it happened later on the june twelfth hearing in las vegas and that critically was the hearing just before they appeared in september for the merits hearing so the immigration judges and warning them in in los angeles and in las vegas that if they don't apparent consulate some point with counsel at some point they'll have to represent themselves but i think really the strongest evidence that they knowingly and willingly waive their right to counsel when they appear at their merits hearing on september tenth of two thousand and one they came fully prepared to represent themselves both the husband and wife testified on their behalf and they brought along three witnesses with them fully prepared and if you look at the record it's a very it's extensive a case like to watch where they come to court and represented by counsel the attorney has a conflict in can and can't represent them in the afternoon and withdraw and they're forced to go forward on their own this was a case where all of these eighteen months  seems to be what's required and i think that's what the image it's literally that's what the immigration judge did that first time around we hold the petitioner counsel pretty strictly to the rule that if there's a change in counsel there's a form that has to be filled out we hold petitioners pretty carefully to the rule that if there's a change of address they've got to do be appropriate and work and this just sounds really like it's just not that difficult for the you want to go forward here's the four five explain your rights to you if you want to for years before i can only stay here on earth this point the executive office of immigration view has not implemented any such form process when they would essentially be their son evaluated well you have to keep in mind that at the time of this the son was only two and a half years old and these later special educational needs came much clearer when he was five years old they weren't so clearly they were there were some indications they had said he was slow in developing bar many times i have seen judges and if you went on represented a in a list of social service agencies that might provide legal counsel unfortunately less than one or two percent of the times have those organizations had the ability to do it they didn't have the staff they didn't have the funding and they had an overwhelming caseload so if you attempt to