the immigration judge in august of two thousand and one and said have timely of feeling to the board within thirty days as he told me he would he failed to file a procedurally proper notice of appeal for five months four months beyond the allowed time wright it was not procedurally correct in his filing and then what happened was it was then sent back to him within the thirty day period and instead of filing with the correct he waited for additional time was not until january fifteenth of two thousand and two when he finally filed it he now and was denied as it was rejected and he filed in untimely motion to reconsider as well it was due within thirty days he waited two months you file a petition for review before th court as well all along claiming to her that he had the right to do these things this is private i know to read he is not allowed to file and i circuit or board of immigration appeals he is not a legal representative that the california state bar or any other bar in he told her he could and he did if you filed in pro se lying to her telling her he was filing for ms cristoval was unaware of what was happening to her until her husband read the brief in summer of two thousand and two at that time the of immigration litigation filed a brief and her husband looked at it and as you are aware these beings are very illegal in nature contain extensive legal ease and complex language and he sought assistance he went to find help what do we do now some attorneys told him go back to mexico tell your wife to go back other attorneys told him we don't represent anyone in the ninth circuit finally she went to catholic charities catholic charities or go to  level of english she did not understand what was happening to her she was told by a man that she trusted her legal representative that he was filing an appeal for her he stated that it was you know when she went to europe  case she's notify the notary of what was it that she was going to seek a complaint with the state bar she filed an affidavit outlining the agreement that they had that she had paid him over five thousand dollars or five thousand dollars increments of one to five hundred dollars over a period of time to represent her he didn't have the right to represent her it was five from the beginning in fact in the asylum application he did not even sign it as the prepare although indicating that she was fluent in english which she clearly was not in she s you she sat on her rights for at least ninety nine means several thousand and two and september of two thousand and three it's clear that she thought something was wrong how how much she knew not exactly clear but they were put on notice by the government's brief her husband explain things to her that obviously if they did whether they understood the details of everything they clearly understood that there was a problem there because at that point they started going to counsel now can you tell me why it is an abuse of discretion for the b i a to say is that on your rights for nine months deficient representation conclusively learnt of the defense representation when did that happen september september of two thousand and three when this you file october of two thousand and three in addition her matter was still pending before this court did not that they rightfully denied the triple cost of his notice of appeal that was not done until july of two thousand and four well after the filing of this motion to reopen so truthfully did you conclude as we learn until july of two thousand and four we would argue not she filed a motion to reopen the soonish and learn from her attorney that fraud had been committed against her is there anything in the record you show the number of lawyers she's got out of those nine months and one of many things they told me i can quote from her death aeration your honor after reading the responses brief my husband tried to hire an attorney to help most of these attorneys told him they do not handle my target and i should return to mexico i do not know what to do through catholic charities i was told to come morning may please the court my name is cindy ferrier and i'll be representing the using the attorney general on this matter the sole issue before the court is whether the board abused its discretion when it denied the motion to reopen for failure to show the requisite diligence the answer is clearly that it did not abuse its just question the board based upon the information that it had which was the only information i had the only information it has was and they actual affidavit  reasonably determined that it could not find the petitioner had exercised diligence in pursuing her immigration case and simply did not have enough information to find that she had exercised the requisite diligence the only information that it had seems to suggest that she file a motion within within the told period or within the renewed period and i guess all of the cases within the court make pretty clear that dates are dates are very significant in evalu immediately or shortly thereafter it doesn't say the exact date that he retained the attorney but in that case the thing to note there as well is that thing period or the period to file a motion to reopen was for a new car and  instead in ninety nine didn't actually filed a motion and talked quite a bit later but there what the courtroom found was a significant and then it was the actual receipt of the entire case file so that they could conclusively learn that there had been in two thousand and so they learned of the fraud and they retained counsel within a month i'm not mean they were in this case in september when they went to this law firm was at that time being rude and was one month later unlikely it could have then anytime within that nine month period from when they read my and now here the standard or at least as it set forth in a daily own is conclusively larn that that particular case involved in a car a motion to reopen although that give conclusively learned in september you know whether it was also she also had i left a note to go on to build if you if you conclusively learned that there was a serious problem requiring immediate legal attention in december of two thousand and two is the question  and yet and that all these you know ten months go by what's to say that it could be years upon years before someone comes up and now says well now i understand now i know i finally got counsel and i now and again i'm not these people didn't try to retain counsel they've said that they did but that's the problem is what happens when people don't act with any diligence and then in fact once that but once they do retain attorneys and they go ahead and they file a motion that's where the problem comes petition for you coming before this part yeah but they also they also know as a result of this very brief in december of two thousand and two that they've got they've got some additional problems here that don't seem to a bit addressed adequately by their representation by their representative