today wearing his political parties clothing my argument today has two points the first whether the board iran has lead denied the motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel and secondly whether the board breached its legal duty to provide a complete record and therefore preventing proper administration andrew dish will review first like to go to my first was an argument the board stated that the reason why it denied the motion to reopen was because as exact sequence when they are what they are but did a paralegal does the records show anything about what the paralegal your honor the record does not reflect what the dealing here with the question of if we were doing stricklin we first look and see whether it fell below the standard of care and then we move on to prejudice but here because we're in a hearing which someone's not entitled to counsel we're looking at something of whether or not the hearing was rendered fundamentally unfair so i think what we're all trying to ask in some way or another is why was this look at the context of this hearing how would it have been different how do we know it would have been a different hearing had had counsel done more preparation  judge told anyone that actually yes the judge did tell him that however we believe that his the hearing would have been different if he had known had ahead of time also due to the manner the manner of interpretation he would have known to expect simultaneous translation to know that how to listen to the party statements and the interruptions that the judge can later also told him that as well yes your honor however he does we believe that the outcome of the case would have been different had he known ahead of he would have been prepared as a judge did say in his i j found in this in his written decision that orders or assume that there are many places where mr us monday's testimony conflicted it was contradictory it were arguing your honor that the perceived inconsistency of his statement would have been clarified had he been able to meet with his a trying before hand because the asylum application that he filed with the minutes nearly three years prior  basically words are saying that he was thrown out of his he's anxious to begin with and he was thrown off his game because of all the various problems the appeal i've never seen credibility finding and what he presented was just the fact more support that he was confused than that and what he tried to present led to the adverse credibility finding as far as which stem from his attempts to relive again the immigration judges adverse credibility finding and compensate for the deficiencies in his case below well let's we focus on an issue that your call we didn't have a chance to get to the transcript is not great i think we can all agree on that how bad does it have to be before we say we don't have a sufficient basis for conducting a review well the board looked at the issue what what's the minimum level of a transcript necessary for us to conduct appellate review well i believe your honor that it has to be the transcript has to be such that it didn't scuse me the appellate body could could provide meaningful review and in this case gives me in this case the board sue a sponsor a look at the record even though the issue had not been had been waves on the direct appeal the board suit is funday looked at the indiscernible issue and determined that they did not have any problem reviewing the specific findings of the judge due to the indiscernible that the indiscernible zx occurred in a lot of places where the judge was directing the the petitioner was speaking to the attorney speaking to the translator the board felt there wasn't anything substantive that was affected with its review ability so let me ask your second question about it and you can you know i think you've sort of touched on it already the course the board did look at this should we really apply a waiver to the failure of mistrusts money to raise it on his direct appeal to the board in other words the board made findings that the transcripts were sufficient for it the board abused its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider he has to show that the board acted arbitrarily capricious regulations appropriately before as is in not the issue of abuse of discretion is here the board looked at the transcript and first and foremost determined that because the issue wasn't raised below that it could have it could have denied the motion to reconsider on that basis alone but it didn't but it did not get it made an alternative finding under doing so looked at whether petitioner received due process with regard to the transcript and they found found that not only did it not impede their review ability of the case the specific issues raised in the evers credibility finding they also found that petitioner has not raised any specific indiscernible or any specific instance where he felt that his case wasn't being understood or he felt that his words were being misinterpreted the board looked at the transcript and said we don't see any problem here been able to review it and also this petitioner did not tell us any instances where we should specifically look and say ok yeah we don't know what he said specific objections to the transcript until the twenty eight day letter filed last night so we feel that in this instance with regard to the transcript the board did not abused its discretion and certainly we didn't act arbitrarily in determining that can i ask you a question about the ineffectiveness quite let's assume just for purposes of argument that counsel never meets with clients before the hearing no communication shows up or to hearing and we get a transcript it looks like counsels performing asking questions examining its center what do we do well you have to i mean it's hard to strickland sense of the criminal case if you met your client on the day the hearing and conducted a trial but what do we then do well if it's true that he didn't meet with the client and if it's true that he wasn't prepared in any way by his attorney we still have the fact that he admits he met with a paralegal we also see in the rocker that the attorney very diligently continued to question him over and over about the issues that were before the court i mean i don't know you i guess i'm asking a different question which the burden of the petitioner or under those circumstances assuming that we take is true that petitioners allegations that i wasn't omissions that are entirely the doing of petitioner and that have absolutely no bearing on whether his counsel prepared him or who was even representing him and i can give you some examples for instance m money said in his credible fear interview and in his asylum application that he joined the political party in november of two thousand and six and then when he was testifying he stated that he joined in june of two thousand and seven something like that has nothing to do explanation to the judge well about the inconsistency he did offer and explanation the judge found to be not convincing well but my point is that you know what helps to relate the story ahead  time i mean it does your honor but then there's that and there's the i j a so the application the decoration that was attached to the application was very detailed right it was very detailed so couple year with a couple your least a couple of years there in the final hearing was i believe in two thousand and eleven so it was at least two years because he came in in two thousand and eight and filed his application neither own nine or ten and i'm not exactly sure on that remember ok well you got me around or i cannot i cannot remember the exact date but my point is that the date of his joining the party that's  central issue to his claim but let me just tell you that in addition to that we have the stabbing incident in his credible fear interview he didn't mention the stabbing at all and he was represented by texas counsel at the time now and individuals not required to convey every detail of his claim in a credible fear interview but the asylum officer asked him explicitly when was the first time you were harmed mr as monny said june of two thousand and eight completely leaving out that he was a purportedly in january of two thousand and seven then the officer asked him other than the incident in june of two thousand and eight were there any other instances of harm to mr as money said no so this is before he met with his counsel in alaska he left out an entire it's a very serious allegation that he was stabbed his claim only has two instances of harm the stabbing in january of zero seven and the arrest in june of two thousand and eight and he was unable to convey that and his credible fear interview when asked point blank what harm did you suffer when was the first time your harmed he was represented by counsel not this coun and what i'm saying what i'm bringing to your attention is that there are several of these instances where if you take away the attorney you take away the judge take away the courtroom layout you take away these specific translator all of these issues underactive peel that mistrust money raise present in the in the room where i believe the liberals was on the phone was on the phone he wasn't there you know the lawyer was on the phone and there was a also an interpreter  and although the government says that he did receive due process we argue that it incomplete record our record with over five hundred dischargeable gaps on is not a complete record and does violate his right to due process  interview as far as him not mentioning the stabbing that's another perceived inconsistency that again if he had met with his attorney prior to the hearing that could have been brought forward to the judge it means he would quick question and i should know this