it was certainly ineffective counsel to not recognize that an order of deportation to panama could in fact result in his clients being deported to panama i counsel even during his argument t or you want us to stay the the mandate or the case to file a claim for in effect of assistance of counsel and that's actually three i think yeah i'm deeply sorry about it too and i don't want to get into that  alien in this case had no in this written mistreated remedy because he was represented by same counsel throughout administrative proceedings as the sentinel did and i think as we all know in such circumstances there are and mate is arguments you know piers possible that the poor board would find tolly i certainly can't guarantee that it's certainly possible because it appears that if there were ineffective assistance of counsel that may not have been aware of it until this court enter its border and therefore if the fish were just became aware of it then he can and the only reason she can it yes is because when she was nine years old she came here without specs inspection although everybody else who came with it came with inspection the only thing i can say your honor is i assume you don't have a record so i don't know i assume that when the charges were played to and i believe the immigration judge is in his opinion actually he didn't because he didn't there wasn't any but i presume that is a master calendar hearing for the immigration judge when the petitioners then respondents were called on to heed the pledge through counsel i presume that he entered this individual as yet without inspection again i don't know because i haven't seen the record obviously that's another reason origin and after all this time don't expect their government might like to work out a practical solution to this problem i mean by now the father's dead we want to wait till all the children  a motion to reopen i'm perfectly happy to reach out in the skies the matter with counsel for the agency well maybe even if they haven't filed the petition the agency could look at this problem think about  with waivers for the agency however that being said this court's precedent is clear the supreme court's direction in thomas in venture is clear where the administrative agency has a procedure and a mechanism in the expertise to deal with these matters then the agency must make the decision  immigration arena the board does because of the board understands all the i'm not saying the court doesn't but as a general matter the board understands the procedural niceties understands the law six children of the fathers dad three of them are here legally three of them are in limbo one of them is varied and what is it that the government wants to do then a back your honor the government doesn't want to send them back to panama the government wants to have their ineffective assistance of counsel claim raised before the board of immigration appeals i guess i'm not hear removal from china that's correct with an alternative order of deportation to panama because the immigration judge apparently found that they were firmly resettled in panama now i do want to a the law even if withholding is granted requires that the they return to the country from which they came as long as obviously it's not the country to which they were taken with hell so there's no consistency between any of the orders i also want to point out that in this case the counsel for the petitioner with respect to the other second family did raise the issues think that's what i want as everybody got back to the d h h s and said look this is ridiculous we shouldn't be doing this who will go and talk to the v h s i think that's the responsibility a conscience reopen and they certainly can talk to the d h s s as well and try to convince them to do a joint motion to reopen the individual certainly for the individual who may well be eligible for  you have fewer were there fewer if the government would solve some of the problems itself and act in a rational manner and not bring cases that shouldn't end up in a court of  it would be better if the administrative agency looked to them and said you know these are cases that really we don't have to support the people who are you know well as certainly as you as i'm sure you're well aware there are procedures for determining whether or not be here but i don't know how to find the process where it will really be discussed at the agencies because you know i've talked to some of the people in the justice department they'll tell you well you know that's really the problem of homeland security and it's they make the decisions i mean the same way they take these cases and say which ones are cases in which we really want to deport people i understand i mean the only thing i can say your honor is the former homeland security really drives that engine and if congress wants to change it then congress can well you know they shouldn't have to be sensible people in the department of homeland case i will when i go back to washington i will convey the court's concerns there's no question about that i will i know that the that they will have access to a tape of this proceeding if i give them the court's number and i may the question was raised as straight who makes the decision about whether to remand the keys or to whether to join joint motion and that is the local office of the general counsel's office in los angeles and their policy for years has been to say no the immigration rules and she was allowed to adjust status so one of her children one of her daughters that came in with her what's the name of the name would you want to tell that one of the da the very briefly i just want to make two points the first is the current record is clear that there was ineffective assistance of counsel in this case is the only guarantee the opportunity for these three children to receive literally on ineffective assistance of counsel is from this core the government is committed during its during his argument and if there was no guarantee that there would be equitable tolling of an untimely motion to reopen that was filed now to develop the issue and there's no reason to require a motion to reopen in this case when the record is clear the government has in contest of the issue and the squire can resolve it on the facts before it with our fire any additional claim which it is clear from the case of those records and this is also not a case where there is any attempt to five past the administrative agency and was not until this court and nationally identified the potential issue that it became  clear that it was a problem in this case and they've been represented by the same counsel throughout the second point is just in response to a question that was raised and whether there are large claims clearly the three children have ineffective assistance  counsel claims where there is a lot of controversy on those and if it's and backed down they have additional grounds that are not derivative of their fathers as i am application including not only withholding