to arm was represented by an attorney who had entered an appearance in the immigration court this attorney was catholic social service and was representing her for free she fired him and got a continuing with the attorney she had she seemed confused when this discussion took place she said she was thinking about hiring another attorney and the judge could have simply allowed her to  six to forty one until the first twenty pages of the transcript were produced which didn't occur until after i filed  that she would know it and her worth their time with no one what she didn't understand is that she had the option of keeping the same lawyer she had and that when she said she was thinking about hiring another lawyer  the judge could have said well when you hire another lawyer then d instead the judge said well you've said you want to hire another lawyer so when you come to your next hearing you either have to have another lawyer or you have to represent yourself the judge didn't say you can keep this lawyer until you find another lawyer and immigration proceedings the right to an attorney and i just don't think that the judge explained that to her correctly i still want to look at the explanations and  you know i don't think that's exactly what she said she didn't seem confused about it i think the word she she used more i'm thinking about getting another lawyer now and i i know i don't know his name i wanted to represent the senate myself but i don't work now i was recommended to hire a lawyer so i was thinking about that and then they go off the record because she said some kind of calendar hearing when she said she indicated she did want to help should have told a late she could continue with the current lawyer until she found a new lawyer and in my experience that's what the judge is doing immigration court they don't allow me to withdraw unless has argued that she did not have an opportunity to raise this issue because she did not have the full transcript when she found her notice of appeal form but your honour's no alien ha she could raise that if she knew what he was doing and where she was raising him out of talk about it but a new lawyer unfamiliar to the case substituted in reading the transcript to figure out what points they were raise immigration judge's decision and that that is the chance for which she raised the issues concerning translation and also challenge the removal or ever or the denial is phylum on the merits now because she was pressed a certainly she couldn't be expected to you know articulate a full legal argument she wouldn't be expected to you know cite to this court you know decisions concerning representation  but however in artfully she could have had intend something alerting the board to the fact that she was an represented by counsel and she thought that that was a defect in her proceeding  something to call the court's attention to that being an issue in the case and perhaps that also would have alerted the board to look for some of the preliminary hearing meetings that would have related to the lack of counsel at the hearing so our position is that the court should not even reach the issue of her due process issue because of the failure to exhaust and certainly under this court's precedent i procedural could not appear because she had anonyma vehicle accident and he creation time but from the beginning of that hearing it's clear that he was prepared to continue to represent her on the immigration judge though  begin to inquire about the whether there was a representation agreement when this is directly our herself volunteered that she wanted to get different counsel there after the immigration judge provided her with for months to obtain a counsel and this is after her her case they've been pending for for quite some time nearly a year at that point so i really don't see how th decision which also involved an represented alien but unlike in just into this immigration judge fully explained to mrs directing are that she had a  right to present evidence on her own behalf to cross examine witnesses to present documents there was no she also important just as objecting are what she had to prove to prevail on her silent case showing prejudice and at no point has she demonstrated that her she lacked a full and fair opportunity to present her  case because of her lack of representation at the hearing she was found credible her testimony was found to be consistent with her asylum application and her detail statement in support of that application  however she failed because because she failed to demonstrate a nexus between any harms that she allegedly suffered in russia and any political opinion she had it for all of these reasons i don't think it's important that mr secretary didn't sign the representation form the middle of the fourth the court accepted it and the court believed that she was represented by counsel otherwise the judge would not have signed an order allowing whether they were filing together the husband did tex i know box and there's there's nothing in the record to show this but basically the husband didn't think that he was allowed to include her because she had her own application pending already but that's not in the  record they were not a strange he had filed some divorce papers it was never finalized and he had done that to make it easier for him to travel