burden on us meaning petitioner in this present counsel of having notice when no notice was received to be substituted in august is in fact the mistake of the b i e clearly abused its discretion and misapplied the by counting the ninety one days from july sixteenth two thousand and three when we never came into the matter till august when we substituted in and got the file  before you is whether the the idea of the used its order in denying the motion to reopen we believe it is that in fact the only issue that's before us you know the other issue before you is whether my client of a may have the dates wrong apologize in two thousand and three his attorney now never notified him that he had an opportunity to file a petition before the ninth circuit he just sent him a letter stating that you can follow a motion to reconsider and we saying that and that's a violation of our client's due process rights we did not did not the board assume without deciding that you had a case of ineffective assistance in order to get you to the july sixteenth the he's indicated in your br and whether the woman to rule changes in india we stating that originally if the ineffective counsel had filed the petition or my client had filed the petition he would have shown that the judge is going back to the ninety seven  hearing before the immigration judge was incorrect the substantial evidence to show that our client was leak petition was not basically credible it's not supported by the evidence and he showed past persecution and clearly we showed in the country conditions as well as the specific reports that they have been fundamental changes in india from the one nine hundred ninety seven to two thousand and three and the issue isn't that he's a minority minority he says the  and practitioner which is miniscule in the indian minority religions and the commission report clearly indicates in two thousand and three that non hindus are attacked in india to such an extent it's foreigners now this is the leading democratic nation in the world and it was compared to iraq north korea by the us commission and they were thinking of imposing shock sanctions against india in two thousand and three this is the time frame when we are alleging all of these issues he clearly qualified for a well founded fear he clearly qualified for past persecution of other not two distinct questions here one is whether the motion to reopen was untimely because filed more than ninety days after the time in which the board found and there's a sub questions where the board had had a good basis to find that you were aware of the  informing the court we clearly showed vital matters by the assad in motion by our exhibits we didn't come into this to august thirteenth and i'm saying even if you go by that if you want to go by the july sixteenth how can we have notice on july sixteenth when the milling about from falls church virginia where did you where did you return back from the board before the board your repeated statement that your motion was timely because fell within ninety days of july sixteenth where did you tell them clearly that your client did know about the current effect of the systems as of the letter to the state bar my client declares under penalty of perjury that on august thirteenth he substituted our office and on august twenty first he notified hi client his attorney putting him on notice that it's holding him as an ineffective counsel that's i know that attorney had already been suspended from the state bar and hadn't even notified my client all you stated there is that that's when you substituted but you've not stated when you first conferred with your client when you addressed tensile ineffective assistance you're only saying now that that's the bit you substituted the fact that you substitute elaters entirely consistent with what you told the board in your previous which is that you are measuring ninety days from july sixteenth is it not i'm stating that if you read the letter to the state bar and you read the letter from my client every letter addressed deals with is no date to indicate that july sixteenth it's in fact the date to come out what was the board required to disregard the plain language of your own brief and look to the record to find something inconsistent with your to conclude that klein did not reconsider he denied my client access to this court actually the letter doesn't say that's the only motion now it states that we want to file a motion to reconsider it doesn't inform him about the ninth circuit and there's no letter from the attorney responding to any might never see that comes from the state of the law but the issue of notice doesn't start from the dig it's filed notice clearly indicates notice to my client notice then begin on july sixteenth with the citation for th nothing for ten years but what's your response to the government's contention which i don't remember from the groups that your client acknowledged the affidavit that he'd been revised in his right to hold back and were i to he had been  that he informed my client that's what the facts of my client has never admitted it or ever suggested i stated he was informed that he could fall in once or to petition that's a misstatement my recollection which of course could be incorrect was that there was a dispute of fact as to whether our counsel did or did not advise your client the right there is no dispute a fact he never did and he the attorneys admission proves that he never did he never responded to that the attorney has never once responded to any letters stating to any of the allegations made in my client has stated under oath he was never informed of the ninth circuit petition my recollection is the one of the letters in the record from your client that references a prior letter that from his part over your time thank you very much for your argument thank both council for their arguments just argued will be submitted will proceed to the second case on the argument calendar which is valid