two children and a sister he is a seventy one year old legal permanent resident who has reside in his country for fifty six years all that mr cor not is asking from this court is another opportunity to present his case  but this time with the assistance of competent counsel and before a neutral immigration judge i want to focus first on the ineffective assistance of counsel issue the government in its brief does not dispute that mr carrados former counsel kafir that his assistant assistants was ineffective they don't dispute that the only issue that they address is whether or not that ineffective assistance resulted in prejudice to mr karr not  aspect of this case which is sufficient on its own to grant the relief that we're seeking now on whether there was prejudice given that standard i submit there can be no serious doubt that there were possible grounds for relief the relief there is question here which was cancellation of removal mr corn otto he arrived in this country when he was a minor when he was fourteen years old he spent five decades in the united states as a legal permanent resident working paying taxes supporting his family he has no family in mexico he now is faces you know permanent separation from his children who are u s citizens his family members who are u s citizens this is really the exactly exact type of situation where cancellation ruvell is at least possible we're not saying it's going to be guaranteed we recognize i recognize that he has a criminal record that's why he's in removal that's why cancellation rule being exists you know but he needs all the basic requirements cancellation removal and on the discretionary factors i think at least it's a possible case and in fact that the immigration judge who i said and we've discussed in the breeze was quite hostile towards mr i think you can do that given that especially if you find that the immigration judge here lacked it neutrality i think sent it back to the same immigration judge is going to get potentially the same result and so i would submit that it would case i i had to go get the audio recordings because i thought the transcript was wrong i thought it was the judge who was asking some of these questions it was really quite shocking and i think it we've it's time so now we know based on what's in the record it stems from the lack of preparation no investigation of the case no meetings with mr cohen on or his family members that's undisputed that's in the eye for i was before that the ira but then in addition to putting aside the harmful  you know direct examination there was cross definition by the government along with the judge which was quite damaging to mr core not zero in fact it led directly to the immigration judges he conclusions about the extent and scope addict for twenty years with only three to four months of sobriety which is what the immigration judge concluded in the hearing mr karr not zero deny that he was a drug addict there were statements that he you know never bought drugs he only that he only used them casually i guess that was one way you could frame it and so basically clarified and also was in consistencies about the frequency of his use the  and even government recognized that in its questioning and what ended up happening was the immigration judge because he was light on rehabilitate it on that issue the immigration judge took the most unfavorable answers and what with jumped to the prejudice question because that finding was dispositive so we can't on behalf of the government defend a finding that was not made by the board so i was playing to address that ultimately out of this this case is about prejudice it's about autos failure both on the ineffective assistance claim and on the due process claim to establish prejudice certain things in this case are relatively undisputed the positive equities for mr carr not oh we're strong over fifty years residence in this country of a solid work history family ties here in the united states all of those things were at the end of the day at and even today undisputed and he's given the credit he's given full credit for that by the immigration judge and by the board both times around that's what makes this that's what made this in the immigration judges words a close case where he ran into trouble was on the negative side of the le and he did not through counsel in two thousand and eleven or through counsel in two thousand and fourteen after this case remained in was reminded he did not bring forward effective evidence to mitigate to there was no proffer of evidence there were no affidavits talking about bringing down the negatives i don't think it's fair to blame mr botha coffer for the failure to present that type of evidence to mitigate the negatives which were substantial i don't think it's fair to blame him for not putting that on in two thousand and eleven when even competent counsel could not or i should say did not bring forward that evidence in two thousand and fourteen  board really looked at the two issues that this court directed to look at that was the problem in two thousand and fourteen when this court looked at the case this court found that the board had failed to address the in a fact of assistance claim and the due process claim that mr raised pro se to the board and that's what this court said send it back to the board you need to address these things in the first instance that's what the board did in two thousand and fourteen well but without having a new hearing in front of an i just on the paper record the only reason i'm not immediately saying yes is because current counsel representing mr carr not before the board did submit affidavits to the board the board had the benefit at least of those affidavits from the stick or not o and from his sister so there was at least a proffer to the board as to what the claim was to supplement that ineffective assistance claim and again where those those affidavits focused was stay focused what they talked about was we could have done more had we had better counsel had the immigration judge not conducted the hearing as he did to bring out more positives it's the government's position that the positives weren't the problem here for mr karr not though the weight of the evidence was there on the positive side again he the immigration judges words much weight must be given to the work history the long term residence the family ties in the united states that's what makes  case where his claim failed was the negatives were so substantial a long term history of drug use that continued it well into his fifty's and sixty's including a conviction for methamphetamine after he was already in immigration proceedings and that's what the immigration judge focused on i do want to address a couple points made by counsel the questions were tough there's no doubt that these questions by both his counsel and the immigration judge were would where i would understand your honest concern what i would urge this court to consider is it was from the answers that were given by mr karr not up to questions by the immigration judge to questions from his own counsel mr karr not to was losing this case it would have been wrong for mr brokaw for to ignore the elephant in the room essentially what you have here is a situation where the trial judge the immigration judge is saying to mr karr not oh your answers are going to win here for you you need to give me something more and even his giving were going to lose the case for him and those questions then from the from counsel but as undisputed that there's been no witness for permission i don't mean witness coaching in the sense of you know asking for false answers any competent lawyer prepares his witness which has not been done that that's the record that we have this sounds like witness prep like i'm going to ask you all the hostile questions the other side is going to ask you know and preparation for those hostile questions but the trouble is where we are today but also what happened in two thousand and fourteen and the when this court has addressed claims of ineffective assistance that addressed failure to prepare this court out of sites the llyn cases that morale it's pollini our case what this court said and what this court found was not only was there a failure to prepare but there was a failure to elicit specific evidence and the court was able to identify in those cases very specific evidence that bore on the elicit simple school records that would have been that ultimately cost was relatively no the case and i think it's fair to mention in that case the immigration counsel was suspended from the practice of law twelve to his after the immigration hearing here and listen to address that case briefly you had a situation where counsel was in new york did not think she was going to be handling the case on the day of the of the immigration court hearing and is pushed by the immigration judge to handle the case and there was again all sorts of information that one school effective counsel came in that information as this court recognized in lynn as as judge fletcher's decision recognized and when there was evidence that would have made a difference that's what's missing here your honor and i understand your honour's concern but at the end of the day this this case is about balancing the equities all the positive equities in this case are undisputed they are to simply add to that pile of positive equities that still doesn't get him over the hump because he still has the substantial negative equities that not only mr protocol for failed to address but also in two thousand and fourteen when this court sent the case back to the board there was no proffer and to be fair i can only speculate what could have made a difference certainly this could send the case back for for another hearing would you address the question i asked that you are pushing coun this court and others where there is a strong recommendation made or more that it is directed and as counsel noted we didn't contest that in our brief ok i do want to emphasize the type of evidence that we're talking about potentially here i can't stand here and represent what might make a difference because if this case does go back it's going to be for a new hearing but in cases where an individual has convictions in cases with former gang members for example rehabilitative evidence does come in and that type of evidence could be statements from a pastor i see what time is expired like a response evidence from a pastor a counselor an employer who can testify to how that person has has made and who denies that he's a drug addict his sister denies that he had a drug addict was a drug addict to the degree that the immigration court found and i just want to be free when i have time i do want to address the court to this court's case law on prejudice and it is specifically rejected what the government's trying to do here which is requiring an explanation exactly what evidence would have been presented in support of the application and that's the mulattoes out on our case the context it gives them power that doesn't suffice is the critical issues before the tribunal then let's consider them we've never had that opportunity never been able to go back to the immigration judge the fact that we put some of our evidence then and i can represent the court is not the full extent of our evidence and on the limit it rained and that was to decide just the issue of that that the b a had previously ignored what was not an invitation to completely reopen the record and if we are given