i'll be very brief this case has some unusual circumstances most unusual circumstances that were now here on the peel on the fifth motion to reopen now in i want to reinstall or our main problem courses the statute does not allow us to review discretionary decisions so why isn't the decision whether to thread a fifth  reopen the discretionary undermine of the lynch one thirty five supreme court twenty one fifty two thousand and fifteen case the supreme court's held that courts of appeals have jurisdiction review immigration claims that have been rejected  does statutory requirements for a motion reopen and the reason for the dial makes a move at twenty he won fifty four fifty five the supreme court stated that the reason for the denial makes no bring to the court's attention a case just from this past week i believe in the eleventh circuit when v usa attorney general number seventeen dash one zero eight thirty four basically discussing different facts situation but the skull singing multiple motion to reopen ends and the requirements page seventeen of the twenty eight page decision relies on that and we've got an action here that relates to the last denial motion reopen which included unamplified all prior motions three open the court does have the jurisdiction we've argued all along that the b i a abuses discretion in this matter and the by word is discretion while motions to reopen are discretionary in the b i a as for why broad discretion on saying there has to be the application of legal principles in the spirit here to in failure to do the same is what's reviewable now real quickly and i'm going to just about and my argument this appeal rises from multiple up and the real question on that we're raising for the first time is when does the attorney client relationship does it arise when the client pays the attorney and goes through the process or multiple consultations where the advice is in correct does that bring it to the level sata we believe it does especially when the information provided in those consultations led to a ten year hiatus between the time the first time that he came to see the attorney to when he was told that like the old contract in school where you swim across a river and when you reach the end of the river the person says revoke bones revoked we're in that provided it is what's important there let me just say one word thing as we know that this case arose years before by the failure to attend a hearing i have to point out that historically in this case prior the inam century order when he failed to attend that hearing there'd been numerous other cases where he appeared each and every time came to the attorney's office went with him in the court in this instance two days prior to him appearing the attorney the pier my gut reaction is that when he did appear and he was told too late you've been ordered deported a motion to reopen should have been filed that immediate point in time saying look we've had a process he's been here ten times before unfortunately he had the wrong date it's gallagher he had to come up from no from southern wisconsin to chicago and whatever the reasons he does have relief available he's got a u s citizen wife and two children and yes there were after acquired equities but the bottom line is that had things been right with him on day one we wouldn't be in the situation thank you  motions now continued fact facts of notice mr mr somebody has been put on clear notice that he needed to give notice to his prior counsel we still don't have an indication that he's given notice to all of the counsel whose performance he's attacked we do have one response from ms lenz california but still we don't know what it was necessarily brought to her attention whether you know he was foot you know ms landscape was fully notified of all of the charges so again we don't have that critical lowside notification requirement this court example size in cases like the tele and other matters it's a private group choose that one or more of the attorneys mr  substantial compliance with th recent evidence we have is that there may be a problem on the first prong about just the scope of your the existence and scope of any representation but the problem we have here is that we still don't have an indication that the attorneys of burton and car got notice and were able to respond to these allegations i mean burton in particular you know would have been useful to have him give an opportunity to respond about what happened you know back back when but on that point about just the appearance or no canby had much more reason not to attend to talk to october hearing we know from the kind of mid two thousand and one the july fifth two thousand and one hearing that things were not going well for his request for relief it was around that time where it became clear that mr awesome his first marriage was either dissolving or you know ahead of that time you know a divorce had been granted there was more concessions there abouts that he couldn't at that time pursue a just kind of status he'd not been pursuing asylum instead and he was instead going for potentially cancellation of removal as a battered spouse and there were strong indications that he didn't have a good round for relief and therefore did not have a you know the same sort of incentive to show up at his october october hearing and if so why not the roots were what you're saying is that from the government's perspective this are some be did not have a potentially meritorious faces on which to oppose removal in october two thousand and one i'd say it i do where i trace your honour's that we have based on the record we have we have reasonably good indications that the main basis on  which he had been seeking relief had disappeared and we don't know much about the strength of the other grounds of relief because he never filed for them so far as i believe the record discloses that i believe the better spouse relief and he gave up an asylum application so so far as a record of those he really didn't have much of a claim left at least so far as as we've been able t  the appearance in court at worst at worst he would never have gotten a deportation order he would have gotten a voluntary departure order and he did have claim through relief that would have been addressed at that point in front of the i j a it was never an intentional attempt to avoid it somebody would appear in court ten times previously driven down rain sleet shine or snow he's been there every other time before knows the notification that was addressed by the government's tyranny i must admit that all the attorneys were notified the responses came from all the attorneys they were all notified either