here are clearly plausible grounds for relief mr got to never even asked these petitioners if they were going to be forced to leave the country what would they do with their children he didn't ask them this question prior to the hearing he didn't ask them this question during the whether they're even to be able to feed their children they have decided to leave their children with the now petitioner's father here in the united states and that is going to put a huge strain on just a lot of us father who's permanent resident of the united states because until now mr amount of us father luis who is a seasonal worker has had to rely upon the financial support of mr him out of the during those portions of the year that he's been unable to work he's a sixty year old man his his livelihood is gained from working in the fields he's sixty years old you can't imagine him working in the fields for maybe another five years in addition to taking care of this from out of years to children he's going to lose the support that mr amount of i have been providing him because mr amount of years going back to grinding poverty there's no doubt about that the village that he came from when he left it did not even have electricity or running water the nearest doctor was a one hour car ride away but he had to yet the government's jurisdictional position it seems to me it reflects a lot of chutzpah because the ultimate question in this case is whether these petitions were afforded a fundamentally fair proceeding and the government's position it seems is that this court doesn't have the critical portion of the hearing but i frankly think it supports the petitioner's present position rather than the government's position the first thing about the hearing is that it was the trial attorney who was asking telling the petitioners that they need to bring in certain he thought they needed to present tax returns and to use for certain years one nine hundred eighty eight one thousand nine hundred ninety one ninety two ninety three and that is very specific it's true but when the particulars appear for their final hearing they made clear that they never file taxes for those years so the instruction that they bring in tax returns for those years was was useless because they never actually filed taxes during that period of time and that's made clear on pages one ninety five and page two o the administrative record then moving on the trial attorney says today i'm also going to need some documentation showing that you were here at the beginning of one nine hundred ninety eight up until april of one thousand nine hundred eighty four month period of time that make their case and then finally there were at least three different times where the petitioners asked questions of the immigration judge of the trial attorney about well what if i get a letter of this or that sort and i three separate  upon the immigration judge was trying to be helpful in the trial attorney was also trying to be helpful but there they don't know the case then it's not their job to do for the their clients the petitioners  various sorts of evidence that may be presented to ensure that they have a combination of witnesses and documentary evidence to cover the complete period of time so although i mired with judge stockton didn't this case she really instructions it's perfectly reasonable for aliens to rely upon an assumption that their attorney is competent and is doing the right thing and that's what happened here they relied upon their attorney and their attorney mr got a completely let them down