right of counsel and the right to due process in full and fair hearing in fact they were because of the record shows they were victims of the international law center which is a rather well known or shall i say infamous group of nine attorneys who worked with various attorneys the record shows that the petitioners made a contract with the international law center not with an attorney they ma and the counsel at that time knew that they were there but had never met them had never interviewed them had never met the petitioners until five minutes before the hearing so she actually said to the immigration judge that the those witnesses would be quote duplicative which in fact it wouldn't have been it would have cleared up the issue of just seven years presence she feels really documents i believe partly hearing because it shows in the transcript that she didn't have the documents required under matters i g e stating that the parent would actually counsel there's another problem beyond the one raised by judge by b this is a beyond that required a period proving a time period how do wish to hardship i mean i can see a lot of hardship here only extreme hardship yes that's right it was a zero is the earlier last hour standard yeah so the petitioners believe that they were prevented from presenting any sort of evidence by the ineffective assistance of their counsel their length being treated for asthma at kaiser record yes if they take the child with him you probably won't be able to get medical care there because they will be able to afford it there was no discussion of education  about that assuming i was not in effect of this assistance of counsel so i'm running upstream without any paddles clearly i know but i also have an alternative argument but if i could just say might be made had there been might there be in the future out of work right just briefly though i'd like to say about the ineffective assistance of counsel well what can counsel has said her representation is about this law center they're not the record the question is did in fact this records show that they got in effect of this is of counsel i just want to point out that what was prepared by this center and submit in the case in chief one hundred pages of document supporting their claim among those documents those are on the judge discusses the documents in one sixty two to one sixty six of the record and what those include in the judge specifies that unfortunately i brought the excerpts with me and not  whole record but all of those are in the back end of the administrative record so the receipts to the petitioners just show that they were here letters from friends relatives employees you know from different people saying that they were here tax returns i think one was at least one was from ninety four several affidavits from people talking about their presence in this country and their involvement in the community showing that they had were both in rolled in adult school and that their child was involved in head start of its interest in and make those on their own those were created they were tab and they were submitted as evidence by the center to help them there's nothing that says that attorneys cannot use assistance to help them put these didn't put them on that she only put on one but that for all of those witnesses that were there the judge the immigration judge assumed that their testimony would be consistent with what their affidavit said about the petitioners presence and involvement five years whether they need the second one the declarant said that he knew they were here actually started one month before the petitioners even claimed they arrived in the united hundred nine so that didn't help them either what what they put in their motion to reopen now is is a new affidavit from the person you know that has additional information different information from what was in that witness's affidavit that the judge did look at this case was well prepared i mean frankly your honor you may say that it looked like or counsel may want to say that it looks like it was just the standard was the questions but looking at the testimony this attorney asked them about their work history they both said we well the husband said he has worked since he came to the united states he's always worked in contributed she asked him about their tax payment she asked him about whether they had insurance and in fact they do they have medical insurance do they own property where did they live where did they pay rent who did they live with in addition in the motion to reopen the board said ok we'll even assuming the child develop asthma we are going to look at that as new evidence that's being introduced and they looked at it that way to saying well there's no showing that it's a fear that he you know counsel may say well he can't be treated in mexico there's no evidence of that in the records and you know mexico i think there are plenty of doctors in mexico i mean i just think it's it would be it's certainly not an abuse of discretion for the some of that i i knew well in that in the past and if that person would have left and walked out the door i would probably have a role so yes i saw him in the courtroom but when he came up here to hearing and proper representation and certainly makes it easier on everyone the judges can make the fullest decision but but the fact is that they have they have very competent resume representation at this point and we're even and even if the court does assume that there was an effective assistance of counsel at the hearing below they have not shown prejudice they have to show prejudice on two issues on the length of their residency and on the hardship issue and they haven't shown it in the government to you on either of those points as i said the edition all evidence about present prejudice is a new affidavit that is different from an affidavit that this same there is only that one really the claim that that now he remembers something different than when he prepared this declaration for so that's the that's the evidence that they put in on the like the presence that they it was their burden to show on the hardship issue  sensually that the new evidence is that their son has asthma that is new evidence that came in the doctor's letter which is on page eighty seven of the record was in two thousand and two and the doctor does not say that's not extreme hardship with the board's entitled to make that decision and that's what they did and it should be upheld i see i'm out of time there's one thing i want to be sure to point out to the court is that i know you're transitional rules the court had the same review essentially that the congress has given it now under the real i d act so i certainly could put in a twenty eight day on the real id act but i think that's coming up in every immigration case nowadays on the jurisdictional issue i just wanted to apologize i did not put in the twenty eight day until today on medina morale as and that's that's there i apologize to counsel already and i apologize to the court about that i do think that affects the jurisdictional issue here and i think i'm way over time so unless there are any more questions i'll go and sit down thank you very well the certified administrative records and if you read those declarations again you'll see obviously you're not prepared by an attorney there are written in very poor english a good attorney would have reviewed those declaration and seeing that they were incomplete and inadequate and repaired of full and complete declaration and on what the government attorney has stated that the declaration we submitted was a motion to reopen from daniel hernandez was different the one previous was previously submitted is not really accurate in the first declaration on page three twenty six of the certified menstruated record daniel hernandez streets that he states that he first met them in march of eighty nine in he explains why he remembers the date it's the anniversary month in the year of his fiancee and now so that's the kind of crowd grading evidence that usually does help people remember if if you met them at the same time as something very important in this life so in addition to the hardship issue world that the child probably would not suffer any hardship due to the asthma because the response testified they intended to leave their son in the united states and had made arrangements for his care with his uncle and therefore the child could continue to receive treatment for his asthma however the immigration judge had stated that he did not really believe that the parents would leave the child will go with the parents to mexico and normally in suspension deportation hearing there are many many questions that are asked about the cost of medication in mexico cost of doctors in mexico severely of the