to avoid being deported from the united states removal proceedings were started in los angeles and later moved to portland with two different immigration judges who presided over four different problem in their hearings two merits hearing scheduled at the first merits hearing your process violation of it's meaningful rights resign prepare evidence was presented to the board of immigration appeals and the board ruled on here before this court mr somebody on this is merely refining that argument and presented it more in context of the and you'd not be shown that he has a super strong case it just really needs to be shown that where the proceedings potentially a factor in this proceedings are potentially a factor in that part of the standard satisfied and if there are no other presence i'd like to hear them anytime  but even if it was there was no violation of the right to counsel miscues twenty say arguably i'm not exhausted what do you mean our argument is that he did not present the legal theory that he did not give a knowing voluntary waiver to the immigration judge and legal theory was never presented to the board the board and have a chance to rule on it and you and your argument is that when he was raising the general due process arguments that touched on that the didn't nationally that's not enough but  of whether you should present a witness or all of these things you mention in a footnote sort of is like this compounds the violation of due process and he didn't have an attorney that's what he says so that the fact that they have attorney was factually stated in the brief but he never said i was in my right to counsel was violated because because the immigration judge didn't attend him knowing involuntary waiver of that right i think judge but i have a question to you joe question i don't know how i think clearly if you well i think i think you can rely on the waters case even though to put out that standard and explain that there needs to be a knowing voluntary waiver there's there's no there's no requirement waters that those actual terms have to he had was unwilling to enter into a contract with his attorney he was unwilling to collaborate with his attorneys with attorney with awestricken want to go forward when there was no contractual agreement where he was getting help on the case which should have been a surprise tend to come and it wasn't surprising to come and be prepared to proceed you've already received hearing this is requiring that thing for them whether there really is no prejudice in this case i want to talk about the cancellation standard because when the board is found that there is an exceptional extremely unusual hardship it's been in extreme cases like cases where a case for example where the a single mother is providing for children or children do not speak spanish s caregiver are to go back to mexico now and try to provide for these u s citizen children that don't speak spanish the court found exceptional extremely unusual hardship in that case and in this case it's far different to share testified that first of all she's never been married to his united states  mother as a witness or the grandparents as a witness they were going to testify this would be difficult for the son the separation and indeed it will be there but that's not the exceptional extremely unusual hardship standard the withdraw but what does that have to do with waiver he was apparently negotiating with a lawyer in los angeles when he goes to court and i can understand why doing and maybe that's what they're being paid for but off how many times does the guy just close to go out and go find a lawyer for