factual details but i do think it's worth acknowledging upfront the premise of the board's decision in that case and the board promised its decision on three things st the board accepted that mr mandela's was the victim of a sexual assault that mr nando's was at the time she received the notice to appear she was incapable of grasping the meaning of what she was being told to do and what she was instructed to do on that note was to appear in it to two thousand and thirteen which is when she found out about the removal order against her the question for this court is why is that an abuse of discretion and i would begin by pointing this court to his prior decision in the womb to fang vs attorney general sexual assault and the truck and the p t s d that the board accepted for purposes of exceptional circumstances and that made no mention of took no account of and it's reasonable diligence analysis that would submit that that is a piece of discretion und this court's decision and loofah i'd like to turn now to our nd argument which is with respect to the st motion to reopen filed in november two thousand and seventeen and i'd like to start with the board's equitable tolling that the board found that mr nand as fail to explain what they consider to be inconsistency between the documents submitted to the immigration judge in two thousand and thirteen and then the documents submitted to the board in two thousand and seventy and the critical distinction i would like to draw for your honour's this morning is that was not the inconsistency themselves that caused or to deny equitable tolling it was minturn and there was failure to explain those inconsistent and again the question is specific and cogent explanation for coming to an adverse credibility determination with substantial evidence to support that determination and in that case the immigration judge had denied in a file of the titian soley on what considered to be inconsistency between the petitioners oral testimony and the documentary record submitted support for asylum case this court reversed and this court reversed in part because it found that the petitioner in that case was at her asylum hearing given the opportunity to be confronted with inconsistency and she addressed the inconsistency and in this court's opinion address provided the opportunity to explain those inconsistency correspondent and its opposition brief to mr nana's motion never suggest it argued or intimated by any inconsistency between the two submissions and the board of immigration appeals never held a hearing that would of again allow the board to confront mr menendez with these perceived inconsistency and allow her to explain them credibly or not she was never given that opportunity she could pursue and in parenthesis it was a federal habeas petition and the petitioner told the court that he had pursued all of these other different things throughout the period of time at issue and the board of the court said well what's relevant is what you did to pursue the relief at issue here which is federal habeas really not all of the other forms of relief and so for the board of immigration appeals to have denied equitable tolly because mr and didn't pursue it ta criminal case or because she didn't proceed where you would be so or she didn't pursue didn't claim or whatever all of these other forms of relief is simply not relevant to the question as to whether she proceed with diligently a motion to reopen that on the record in front of that it found mr turner and as its former council's decision to pursue a new visa to be a reasonable decision by an attorney such as his performance was not constitutionally the fis and the reason that that's a good abuse of discretion is because one claims later in its opinion one page later the board found and the not equitable polling because it found this hernandez submitted no evidence that she ha counselors report that was submitted to the immigration court in two thousand and thirteen and the court found that based on this document and this document alone the attorney was reasonable and concluding that there was no asylum relief to pursue and we would submit that that was an abuse of discretion based on the circumstance this was an attorney who was a trust in the state's attorney he had no prior immigration experience most notably he did not bring in a co counsel with immigration experience he document when the evidence evidence for the record shows that literally former counsel was not able to communicate with his client we consider to be an abuse of discretion because it ignores the broader circumstances and that is an attorney obligation in particular in immigration cases to communicate with to guide and to count so their clients and my last about two minutes just under two minutes i'd like to address the court's question as to the application of numerical parise and i would point the court to our letter of april th and the st point in that letter was that the statutory provision and the regulatory provisions in the court's letter of a april rd are limited to the application of proceedings before immigration judge and do not apply to proceeding before the board of immigration appeals and that's by their planning terms as well as this court's prior decision in the lavatory case which we cited in our opinion in our letter respect was incorrect and that perhaps the motion to reopen should have been focused on medical arts and for that proposition i would need to cite to the nd circuit's decision in races versus hope there where the nd circuit said even though tube on versus attorney general holder i believe and in that case the court came to the same conclusion with respect to what it considered a jurisdictional bar of the exhaustion remedy and even though the petitioner in that case had not she was diligently pursuing her rights during the seven year period between order removal and her st motion to reopen just to clarify as an initial matter what is before the court  the board noted and add this is subject to the highly deferential abuse of discretion standard of work that that your parents therapists report that stated that two former partners in guatemala had quote unquote abandoned her the therapist reports discussed numerous traumas and just married life but did not include any allegations that either man physically abused her or threatened her or that she was in any way unable to leave a relationship which was the basis investigate is partially determined by the circumstances of the case and information supplied by the defendant here petitioner did not supply any information to her attorney that would give rise to a duty to investigate  of domestic violence in a marriage to the contrary she affirmatively said that her partner's abandon terms under those circumstances you're trying had no reason to believe that matter of a a r c g would have been at all relevant or that petitioner would interesting that she at the board considered she had not adequately explained what she did between the time of her removal order and at the time of her st motion to reopen so in between the january record that she should have been able to pursue her right therapist that in june rd team quote or explain to me that while she had never forgotten here that she was able to put it behind her until sunday several months ago in november and quote that's when she was stopped by she came to the attention of the police so and she particular did not explain why she was at that point able to overcome her diagnosis of p t s d in order to pursue her rights and here i think it's helpful that although it has to be mental illness that affects one's ability to pursue one frank and the th circuit has noted that at least here the average or broad spectrum of more specific conditions and within those specific conditions there are degrees that the board did not specifically mention but the board did mention her trauma and that it sufficient to indicate that the board considered the problem i presented and as i know that the psychiatric assessment is not actually conceded he had in her possession which for example told her to keep the immigration court apprised of her address she could have contacted even if she met the original hearing you could have contacted the immigration court and provided her proper address she would then have received no it's the in adventure order of removal that was entered against her she could at that point have hired an attorney and filed a motion to reopen much sooner than the seven informing him that he would receive a notice setting hearing date and time made no effort to practice m c a up to his mailing address to the court when you do six months after receiving n c a a or otherwise follow up on his immigration status for thirteen years he cannot now complain that the f b i a failed to grant him relief at the thirteen hour i'm here i think it's also important to recognize that there petitioners either he may have been limited their records suggest that she had something that's not not that she didn't  accepting that she was in a daze and cannot fully appreciate it which we do not concede that that occurred but it's simply not necessary to resolve this case because it is clear that she had the notice to appear which met all of the s a couple of points i would like to make in rebuttal i think st of all a mistake at the beginning of her argument they reference to believe this tremendous failure to pursue what you lisa and i think she put the date on that former counsel and that was triggered by this tremendous learning about the final removal order against her for the st time and i think this leads into the points that the counsel for respondent was addressing with respect to board of immigration appeals expected and i think it's easy when we're talking about what the mandates could have done or should have done to ignore that the board of immigration appeals accepted that from the moment certain and as with the cust of the united states government she under and was the victim of a sexual assault and that sexual assault and i would say is not an allegation here this is a fact that was accepted by the  and the board except that that sexual assault led to p t s d that rendered misheard and as unable to understand what was required of her and that is the critical fact that leads  the the six year time period between the final removal order and when mr mandela begins to pursue her case and that gap while admittedly is a long period of time is singularly attributable to the fact that she did not know about the removal order against her and it's the removal order against her that triggers our obligation to proceed and from the moment mr nesbitt for the st time learned that she was subject to removal ordered she took action she hired an attorney whose performance we do believe was deficient for the reasons i discussed in my opening but she hired an attorney she had really moved to reopen and since that moment she has been pursuing her right diligently and i haven't heard from responded or from the board that there's any suggestion that she did and from the moment she warned of the removal order against her nichols asked this court she said by asking for humanity she said please consider the petition in my case because i have three american children i have a family to fight for and children to educate so that they can grow up to become our for your time and hearing