ially were arguing by mr medina agreed to cooperate with the government both the federal government and the state government by agreeing to do that and by the government in turn speaking leave from the district court to have him act as a cooperator that a covenant was made between both the government the district court and mr medina to be protected from deportation recall was there any explicit promise in the record to that effect was skeeters there is explicit promise judge but implicit in requesting leave to have mr medina cooperate was the government's position to the in this case other than not to be removed from the united states so when the government marches in there to judge government and says we need this man for x y and z reasons which mr that he was able to bring up to light was to to provide information about the t paul murder that occurred some time back in two thousand and twelve so when mr medina lot and there were several cases made including twenty different arrests and prosecutions so when the government tells me that the prosecutions were successful and everything went swimming well i called you know to verify what the what the f b i special was on this and the f b i said yeah we we gave him the benefit we talked to him here in the united states we didn't deport him while he was working for no longer working for the for the government the government then in turn said ok fine you're you have the criminal history background i'm not denying that you're per se removable i don't deny that at all he had he was he was a expansion and reading of the the way it's a shame he is not i get that that that's a difficult burden for me to show other than to suggest that you know judge gentleman would have never judges happy to encourage not go to be realistic and stay protected when he sees him in court next hour those are transcripts that were held in chambers want to go into with sack and change your identity to leave your wife and kids behind mr medina said no i don't want with second i don't want back kind of protection it's rather easy to underlying case here yet we are as i understand it reviewing me denial of a motion to reconsider in a motion to reopen for relief under the convention against torture think that that narrows the issues in front of us as us and i don't really see an effective response to two critical issues relied upon by the board of immigration appeals one is that the simply was insufficient proof of an individual lies risk to petition or medina ryo in mexico and the other is that there was no real response to the failure to comply completely with  lozada procedural requirements for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim if you could focus on those yesterday helpful let's start first of all by the ineffective assistance of counsel judge in my response brief hearing and that substitution while it could have been a great substitution the new counsel could have been terrific counsel there's not even the record to suggest that any warrant dear of that question provided the actual application and and affidavit by that the president to move the attorney registration disciplinary commission eventually when i did file my application here they moved him to texas they moved him so that he could see my thumb right across the street from his jail so if i'm to now i'd like to turn to the motion to reopen alleging ineffective assistance and really plan to focus primarily on that very subject of course this panel's questions with regard to reconsideration it sounds like counsel agrees and understands that there is to show any argument really no notification of our counsel no then response from them explaining their response explaining why they did not do these things that their allegedly should have done like calling additional witnesses to testify in this court has made very clear that there are no exceptions to this are acquirements they are a necessary condition to reopening now this case is a textbook example of why those requirements are important again you are alleging that prior counsel should have done these things different they should have called these two additional witnesses testify we don't have any sense of whether prior counsel didn't call them to testify or try to get them to testify or whether if not there was any strategic reason for not doing so now making those failure sheir even more problematic is the fact that we don't even have evidence of what those two witnesses were and i want to be very clear about this there is no evidence  these two witnesses been called there is again an unusual circumstance here were prejudiced arguments are usually made based on evidence evidence attached to much you reopen some statements some affidavits some indication of the evidence that would have been included or should have been speaking to this petitioners involvement of the government as a cooperative and then possibly to this prospect of harm by these gang members in chicago this has simply limited impact if any on his prospects of harm in mexico authorization during that time and otherwise that they would try to help him get in as now the other point is the substantive due process argument is about protection at the end of petitioners cooperation the government offered  to place him in the witness protection program he simply chose to decline that was without wife and children that's correct yours that's correct that's a pretty tough offer it is your honor and and i think this is not at all about whether or not that was the right choice or whether or not he was  his claim that it really isn't that the government didn't offer to protect him or didn't protect him it's that the government didn't offer him the type of the immigration status that he wanted and there were certainly no constitutional right to that where was he during  your criminal history is very relevant to being able to get that built my understanding is of course the people who get that are very often people who have a criminal history but it's a difficult visa to get my understanding is that based on this their t his offenses in the past his drug trafficking offense he's not his wife mr medina's wife and in that he is promising genevieve that he will subpoena the f b i agent in charge who was patrick speight now promising in writing or in a note to actually subpoena somebody who could shed light on the extent of the cooperation the relevant connection between the gang the cargo and the cartel in mexico the connection between my client the