and mr prado we'll start with you the statement says my my client called approximately fifty clients to the office and three times in order to speak to his lawyer yet the pose of the potential new client in order to make it through the phones and when you would be able to actually speak about timing issues just so i can get them straight in my head when did mr juror filed a bar complaint against his former counsel understanding it was after he sought out the new counsel for the appeal which would have been after the removal or right but do you have any are there any dates in the record about exactly when the bar complaint was filed like the month in the shortly after the removal order which was october th so that i believe this was in the thirty day period wrong with your product if we are greedy with you that just substantial compliance is required what do you do about our prior decision and go by i think i'm pronouncing it correctly g that a petition or did not substantially comply would love zada for two reasons one he did not provide evidence about his agreement with his former counsel and number two he did not provide evidence that he informed his former counsel or gave him an opportunity to respond to the claims of ineffective assistance why doesn't the nd part of go by make it really difficult for you to prevail here so goodbye all was different from this case because here there's no dispute that my client has satisfied at least two out of the three problems and you look at no two the court decided you just like it seems to me shift trying to shift that burden and it frankly would be a whole lot easier for you a petition especially one with counsel here is that be i could have called the bar where the complaint was filed and found out whether they notify the attorney but it's a whole lot easier for you especially with counsel to do that three of the prongs have been perfectly met and that's to the rd prong if your compliance to substantial but not exact and that's the language coming from the kani a later case that that's sufficient and in a biased case satisfied the rd prong that the court held that since the st and nd prongs were not met at all there's no need to do that for two to to inquire about the rd prong so then really that the holding here is if you're if you're trying to look at it because judge joe flat i have a question for you if i may interrupt are you familiar with that chain versus the attorney general yes i am ok that is what we say that  it is not in this particular case that was not disputed by the parties that came substantially complied with the procedural requirements of those up the issue here is whether we should agree with the  requirement and lo sila that an alien such is not cage mice prove that his counsel is deficient representation resulted in prejudice to him there's nothing in this record i've already discussed the situation with his client and decided not to pursue whatever the client wants to that out that there's nothing in here about prejudice so how how are we supposed to reconcile this case brain well ok in endo in the record the vet tourney before the board submitted the forms right so the basis that should have been enough to allow the immigration judge to proceed to actually hold the trial child at some medical issues he has a wife that he supports i don't know if it's in the record doesn't point he owns a business and you know as a used car dealership so he could show the economic hardship in addition to his statement requests regarding the medical hardship for this child i know that there isn't a full documentation of one would present at a hearing on the appeal but that's the point of having an immigration court hearing on a trial where you have the opportunity to bring witnesses and to bring your your car your case for it because if we look at the deadlines that the immigration judge said she sent the case in january in the filing deadline for january for an event or a hearing in october faceoff and since his wife is a united states citizen but is he already has a qualifying relative by definition so he is on the face of the record eligible and should have been eligible to have a hearing but for the fact that the warrior waited till three weeks before the trial to inform the immigration judge to say oops i'm sorry i didn't do my job which i was supposed to do back in april and that was in october when that occurred right and that this is so far below the level of a competent attorney that the th circuit does have some case law regarding a presumption of prejudice that is rebuttable when when the turning fails to file necessary documents and in this case the bare minimum that the attorney should have filed in april where the forms which we can see that were filed in october that at the bare minimum right so that didn't even have to nothing was filed nothing on time was filed so so we're arguing that that is a prejudice because this man was basically robbed of his right to present his case and he was working to to ask you attorney to to do its job and it never occurred to you and to return to the well let me let me ask you this question this is judge jordan if a lawyer fails to file documents pleadings motions on a timely the very near future so be sure in this case at least as it appeared to be when it was requirement you know if if we accept petitions argument then the result of it makes no difference because then out of the three requirements we have the just want to climb in and that should be kind prior your predecessor counsel for the government site with respect to that dismissal by the florida bar i believe he just says on  any sort of information how he found out this information all right thank you very much i would like also monday i guess if if the allegations if if if the allegation is properly supported under lives and the allegation is that the lawyer completely failed to file anything by the required deadline and the client was prime of facia eligible for discretionary relief shouldn't that be enough to get a merits hearing on the end effect of this claim  doesn't have liberty interest in the waiver and so you're saying you can and you can never have an effectiveness claim with respect to discretionary relief you can't house but i guess that's one of the things they need to show that they have to show that they need to have to show the new start that the need to show that they have liberty answers to what i'm trying to say is that that's not part of the calculus in this case i mean that was no discussion t honor with regard to the failure of the attorney to meet that deadline the government counsel seems to fit just but this could be my my client's fault rather than the fault of the lawyer i believe that the immigration judges  ruling explaining the procedure of the case would negate any possibility of such an inference but i would note if you're an attorney and you have a client who is not meeting their obligations your pro other tribunals you're on the hook as a lawyer and you must represent your client up until the point that you're permitted to withdraw or the case is over right so in on those two points the fact that this attorney never moved to withdraw at any point again you never answered my question assuming the test is substantial compliance why is this of science compliance here when it's also being on the side of the aisle or front i thank you very much i think we've taken you way over your time and we need to get to the final case but thank you very much thank you