daughter margaret the boy and with the permission of this court like to address the case this is an immigration case consolidated case in which the a long time to go back to the b i a with that the i said you weren't sufficiently diligent to raise that concern your honor represented by the same council at the level  years to years ok yes your honor and your client knew that the lack of cooperation was a key factor in the i just decision what's missing not necessarily your honor he was misled by his former attorney to parents was a big problem you know your client must have known that now it may be your client accept explanations by a lawyer but why is the b i decided required compelled to decide based on his testimony that when my lawyer told me different that by sitting around for a few years that shows due diligence he was misled your honor ok and and in in  information bearing on the existence of the claim so in this case you know efficient or learned about the existence of the legal claim from his current attorney when we receive bly be expected to know that additional corroborating evidence or his relevant testimony like i used decision says pacifically there are a few paragraphs to talk about the failure to have the brother in the parents testify even though they're in the area and commenting specifically on on your client's failure to offer a good explanation for that after that moment the i j a made it clear that was a problem you wanted there isn't it you're telling me that your client heard from his lawyer is not a problem legal claim against his former counsel so the be i felt to draw that distinction of the motion to reopen based on lack of digital diligence as your honour's have have noted the petitioner was overwhelmingly aware of any problems and representation with this co client as early as december ninth to two thousand and ten when he gave his testimony and was very specifically questioned by the government as to why the reasonably available corroborative evidence was not was not brought forth given by this petitioner for failing to bring corroboration the first reason he's given when questioned on december ninth two thousand and ten at trial why is your brother not here his response is the reason he's busy and he's also involved in his business with the procedure necessary for becoming as a citizen and i don't see it necessary second reason he gives in his first motion to reopen with the board he says my brother was unwilling to testify this is administrative record one sixty two but now he's willing third version of why his brother didn't testify i would point out i was at administrative record twenty eight now he  says my brother and i met with my lawyer at our office my brother told me that he wanted to come to court and testify my behalf because his experience or know me sees me in armenia related to my  lawyer told her and told him that wasn't necessary now clearly and the same goes for the parents you'll see three different reasons why the parents didn't show up the first one's given a trial he just doesn't see the point he says he can testify as what happened he doesn't need any help second reason is in the first motion to reopen he says they were unavailable but now they're available and then the third the third reason is again the motion to reopen that's before this court what do you see as  issue this before this court on this case as i i i believe the evidence he would have to show the evidence compel the conclusion that he exercised diligence and he simply can't do that in this case in fact his own words the reason i want to do it is because he's going to rebut and that's the question for us isn't it whether this record compels the conclusion that that is we should reach a different that is the answer or the issue excuse me and the record clearly does not compel  finding that that he exercised diligence in pursuing this case the fact that he was as attorney's office by his own admission and his third declaration which is attached to his most reopened it is currently before this court he goes into great detail about how he begged his attorney at least twice to not only put in medical records but supposedly to bring his brother and parents in assuming that happens and then he goes to court and the government's making a big deal about the fact these people aren't here and why don't you remember anything any reasonable person is on notice that's a problem we didn't do that he was on notice there was a problem and clearly  did nothing about it for approximately two years later and again i would point out there's at least his versions of why this evidence was not put forth vary depending on testimony or which motion to reopen you look it's all over the board so there's simply no evidence we could compel the conclusion he exercised diligence in this case and the board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion on the adverse credibility issue which agency's finding of lack of credibility is grounded in substantial evidence and there is no evidence that would compel a contrary conclusion if your honor has i'm completed if there's any questions i'd be happy to entertain those hermie not thank you thank you for your bottle was not aware of the real id requirements that he had to produce must produce you know corroborating evidence the question we're facing now was last why didn't he at the time of the first i j trial is the question we've been talking about is has he shown diligence once that problem should have been made painfully aware to him that the absence of corroboration was a problem explicitly cited in the  decision what diligence did he demonstrate after that in trying to address that problem and that be i said he was not sufficiently diligent and the questions we keep posing to you is what compels a contrary conclusion given the passage of time after the time he relief because he was misled by attorney mudd they say and she promised him that she would follow a motion to remount to bring the case back to the me gratian judge so that they would call the brother to testify on his behalf that you know conflict you know side and you know advised the brother that he would be wise for him not to testify until he becomes a citizen by doing so she essentially abandon her role as mr