on to the next case of the day which is shoes jang vs sessions number seventeen twenty seven fifty eight five years after a final removal order children she married in january two thousand and sixteen and the final order was in all five ten years after t not clear in the record but apparently should dead however she was not aware that sure that this passport was a u s citizen passport but she thought i was vietnamese exactly how does that work  when people come with no command of the english language with no education they're not aware of the documents that have the usually use smugglers to give them documents to board a plane and in fact one of the documents i can't so the name of the passport is actually a vietnamese names get a nice name and probably the smuggler told her instructed her to to say what the name was address that issue of immigration cases are very different from civil litigation or criminal cases where people case pleadings would be important and she had for ten years to do anything to reopen her case she didn't do so while it maybe true factually chad no reason to go back and review the case somebody goes forward establishes a full life here has children marries knowing she is subject to a final removal order without ever undertaking any look at what might be done with that order try to reopen the case and this is what happened in her situation the board i didn't find that that ash was eligible for the opening but again the with no reasons for her to question and you have to i think you have to get at least a government on chinese that to go back to travel documents it whatever it is to proactively in their own issue that that's that's what i citizen children can all go to china and she can she go to china if she is able to obtain a u s citizen change passport or travel documents but a lot of times in my experience in chinese embassy we just  i start with that same question i guess about what is the status of chinese people who are supposed to be deported there in order to effectuate a removal order pardon me may please court my crape on behalf of the government in response to your question in order to remove someone to china the government has to obtain a travel document which is usually very difficult especially if it's they're not receiving cooperation from the alien him or herself however if i don't know that i would not say that it's difficult for a chinese citizen to travel back to china if they were to do so on their own product we have come over here to go to whatever you want to call it  will back you probably a lot of that going on now right this person didn't get here that way and apparently they're not you don't just put them on an airplane you've got to have a place to go and  doesn't now i would just suggest petitioner argues that the board erred in finding that there was no ineffective assistance of counsel but that's not entirely correct because what the board did the board said that she did not show that the time limits or the numerical limits motions tree open should be equitably told throughout the whole entire period of the ten years because she felt the show ineffective assistance or due diligence to pull both things now there is no question and i don't think the board ever really made a decision about her she had a falling out with her nischelle turner who made the pleadings after the immigration judge ordered issued the removal order but while it was pending on appeal to the board and the board mailed the entire transcript and the record to her new attorney who represented her on direct books of court and so he and she both had information all the information they needed to raise any kind of objection to that allegedly erroneous pleading of or a concession of the charge of making and  the charge that she made in a false claim of citizenship and they could have raised that at that time they could have raised it throughout on so from two thousand and six when they mailed the entire record to her new attorney alleged that attorney the second attorney mr your man or her third attorney mr tong were ever ineffective in not raising this issue earlier or that they misled her or they prevented her from raising the issue now this court has held that equitable tolling only applies where there's a disability or an iridium meet irremediable lack of information here she's never she's always had the information available to her to raise this claim as big as petitioner admits she had no reason to raise because she was always seeking asylum and it wasn't  hard to assign the false claims citizenship didn't borrow her from obtaining asylum but the fact that it didn't it didn't seem important to her at the time is not an excuse she had the information she could have raised the claim and she has not done so here is some sort of excuse for make sure i understand it it's not a false claim of us citizenship is not a bar to asylum no but it is a bar to any form of adjustment of status is that is what she's would you would like to apply for now because that and the rationale for that is that if you're if you're fleeing a country of persecution you may misrepresent who you are when you come in and that's the that's the reason behind that ok that's just one of those curves and immigration  slam getting used to yes i am going with holding remove the one and protection under the torture convention or basically the three exceptions to the false claims otherwise that it's a it's a bar to any type of that you know the record supports the board's decision that one of the board stated that she was given she had the information she she could have raised this claim earlier and she just simply did not do so so what happens if they do deny the petition if you deny the petition and she'll still have the outstanding remove the order against her and eventually if if the h s makes if it becomes an important priority or something that they may get a travel document for her and they made to puerto she'll be in the same situation that she is today and who then has twenty years but just to underline the point she is required to show that the tolling requires ineffective assistance or something prevented her from raising this claim earlier throughout the entire ten year period she's never claimed ineffective assistance again on mr you're a minor mr tom and that basically breaks her cha the fact that she didn't have a reason to raise it because she didn't have any other form of relief isn't an excuse isn't a reason to toll the time the deadline for filing  motion open and finally as a board member mentioned the fact that she may not even if she were eligible for adjustment of status even if she had never made a false claim of citizenship the fact that she became eligible for that form or relief ten years after her removal order became final isn't a reason to reopen her case it simply isn't it happens you know our immigration law is complex but you know if you can stay here long enough you never know your your kid may become ill enough to file a visa petition on your behalf and you become eligible for relief years later they're citizens they are  this case but i believe this is exactly the reason why a wrong should be corrected the record shows that she was not aware of the charges the attorneys before did not file to reopen the