and we feel that the judge abused his discretion and advice in denying the motion to continue respondents case based inquiry versus in the cases and in that case the importance of the evidence reasonable is that the conduct of the immigrant then this particular case the respondent had tried to comply with by magicks and he had a set of fingerprints they were just too all they have supposedly days the respondents needed to update the fingerprint every fifteen months and so this that's what happened in this particular case he didn't update the fingerprints on a particular occasion so when we were in court at that particular time they had  and so but the respondent did a fingerprint for the california department of justice report and that was where the confusion lied when the respondent fingerprinted for that he thought that he was fingerprinting for the on the required by the judge and so he had thought he had complied with the requirements that the judge has set forth unbeknownst to him those were two separate fingerprint requirements and that was in compliance with what the judge had set forth so we don't believe that the re addition you folks showed up for a hearing at one point and the immigration judge said he had to do another and that case is correct that is correct your and so the fingerprints would have gone out of date at that time with that continuance are correct  they were they were up to date when we were there that time but they would have gone out of date right of removal application in his particular case and the inconvenience to the court but we do believe would have been slight in this particular case for the court had other cases on their docket that they were able to hear on that particular day as well as and also the court if they had chosen to could have taken the testimony of the responding in just reserving opinion for a later time if the court had chosen to do so the respondent would have gone forward he didn't request a continuance additionally circumstances we do believe that the judge abused discretion when denying the motion for the continuance by the respondent and when the b a a refute the abuse of discretion claim that the respondent brought cancellation claim as well as the convention of torture camp and their review nor did they go over that on the fact is they just the the complete factors of the squid versus the case because they just basically english and the respondent does not speak english nor does he read or write english and he did go to his counsel's office like i said in order to do the but i had to do the california department of just and at that hearing when the response when the judge question the respondent as to why he had not fall of the judge's orders are the respondent did respond that he had followed the order so like i said the responder was really under the belief that he had complied with the judge's requests for the biometrics in this particular case and a continuance to them order to achieve that would have been a great and indians to the courts and because of that we do believe that what was the date that the continu  you said that that he did he didn't need to update come that yet that there was a mistake made by our office that the respondent didn't update this thing or prince he had like i said he had previously taken the fingerprints in the fingerprints in those days expired every fifteen this was a very diligent petitioner who relied on bad advice from his lawyer and you know we we have held them previous cases that relying on the advice of counsel can be good cause for not doing something in this case not getting yet another set of fingerprints taken why isn't that an of discretion in this circumstance there are there are twenty two factors here this case is distinguishable from from some of the other cases  where an applicant has received bad advice from his lawyer because here the applicant was advised personally directly by the immigration judge through spending the better of their requirements that seems not to help very much with the government's case in my view speaking just for myself because the lawyers advice came afterwards and these spread you lation change all the time lots of things can change and immigration judge said get more fingerprints and then lawyer said well no you actually don't need to and because it was after and not before why wouldn't he just assume that the rules had changed to a year and a half or two years or forever since fingerprints normally don't actually change certainly certainly understand your can concerns there i would make a note that there is a diligence problem here to two thousand and fifteen so nearly a month after the deadline had already been expired and is it your view that that is per se a good enough reason that that minimal minimal lack of diligence and as you put it that advice but he did not apparently seek out his lawyers and vice timely he was required to have those funds done by march he did not well that's where but we're circling back to the original thing and you said that isn't enough all by itself that you're you know a couple of weeks late yet in your fingerprints so if that's not enough there's really in my view nothing outs well i'd also like to point that at the at the final individual merits hearing when it became clear that there were no prints opposing counsel asked for a continuance but not for prince opposing counsel asked for a continuance because the witness that he had intended to call that day was unavailable so the applicant here was not prepared to go forward on the day of the hearing not simply because he didn't have the prints but because he didn't have his witness the basis for the decision was the lack of prints that was a that's correct so and we can review only the correct i'm making this argument as a defense of argument responding to counsel arguments about the four query factors that the inconvenience to the court well that's actually another problem since the me i didn't tell us how it evaluated those factors we have no no basis to a mansion that that's what they were thank you that's true we know that the the agency focused on the on reason oneness of the conduct of need to do this the the immigration judge was somewhat incredulous when he was talking to the to mr plate lopez you mean you believe your lawyer over me as if applicant he provided oral instructions both of us will and that all before the lawyer said you don't need to do this right and it is perfectly reasonable off it's not as if this was some extremely odd advice it's perfectly reasonable to think that it might be possible for a regulation to change so that your fingerprints are good for a longer period of time it was and  had an obligation to maintain current with this with the state of affairs to confirm whether or not they're sure that's not the question no the question is what the client's reasonable reasonableness what it was and you seem to be saying it's unreasonable because the judge had previously told him something different but i don't see why that would necessarily be we can use that that's certainly the view the the agency had of it we also know that at no time has difference given what the agency knew when it made this decision right and again we would come back to that the denial of a continuance must be upheld unless there is a showing of clear abuse and then the immigration judge certainly was within in his discretion to grant a continuance but he also was it within his discretion and i a continuance the the applicant here had previously gone through the fingerprints requirements indicated that he understood complied but did not timely make an effort to comply and this case and again it is as the applicant it's his burden to establish his eligibility for relief it's not the the government's burden to to show that there are no potentially disqualifying convictions and again when it became clear that there were no prints this hearing could not have gone forward in any event because that the agency denied because there were no plans well and that's the only thing we're allowed to review that's correct that is an independently dispositive basis the immigration judge could have denied on any number of of bases the immigration judge denied because he failed to comply with the requirements and the instructions which were provided clearly orally and in writing so we would ask that you deny the petition and you c well as how the witness who was unavailable in that particular day present but you have a reference or record reference for that it's in the transcript i don't have it off hand i would have to go through the whole transcript from that requests from respond respondents counsel as well as the respondent himself the answers that were in the questions that were being allowed were being cut off by the particular judge in that particular case and so you if you read the transcript you will see where the responde t counsel started to ask for certain things but then was cut off by the judge stating that he had told the respondent directly that he needed to do his fingerprints and that happened on the several occasions on