proceedings in immigration court as a result of his counsel's ineffective assistance of counsel as ineffective assistance which mr gary money unfortunately did not discover until over three years after he lost his permanent residency three years a long as he keeps going to stump lawyers he's dissatisfied with the prior one he's exercising due diligence until he finally finds what he says what you really have here is a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel not necessarily i think it would depend i mean i think in this case so everybody committed ineffective assistance of counsel warriors one two three and four right and that's not something that's new to this court certainly and this court has considered many cases where there's been a string of immigration attorneys committing ineffective haven't demonstrated that there's any ineffective assistance right identify any ineffective assistance yeah i mean i don't think the board even reached that issue but what mr jenner money alleges in his motion to reopen is that his attorney as we were discussing in the last as and alien in immigration court to who's apply for to toss the relief to be able to submit to convince the judge that his positive equity is outweighed whatever crime he's convicted of and in this case all his attorney did was submit some medical documents relating to his wife and did not explain to mr get her money get her money at all what other positive equities could have been available he states and has a declaration in support of his motion to reopen various other types of documents which would have been available if only his attorney had asked him if the chinese apparently also advice to be that those those that explanation with the i g is finding that because of the fact that he committed the criminal offenses shortly after he entered the united states that somehow outweighs the impact of the two felony conviction exactly because right the only finding of the immigration judge which  which is sort of prejudiced mr kerry how money is the finding that he's not deserving of to toss the relief as a matter of discretion interesting with immigration judge actually had another reason why he did night it was the relief he actually preacher made it as a matter of law as a relief for an untimely motion to reopen and that is really the key because there are significant distinction is that in this circuit of course the circuit has for a long issue as a factual issue and because my question to you was why isn't it a factual issue here i mean the board basically made a factual determination that your client did not engage in due diligence because in and therefore he is not entitled to gets determination that it was deciding a question of law is in direct contravention to the circuits practice thus far of a considering equitable tolling cases are the issue of equitable tolling as a question of law in cases of it's a question of law and fact because i don't see how you could decide the issue without looking at the facts of the case to find out why this additional waited a factual inquiry the question is why did he wait to go through five different lawyers before he raised an ineffective assistance of counsel claim and was the diligence in going through all these lawyers and waiting as long as they did t a motion a real right but the facts underlying that determination the facts to be considered in making that determination are undisputed and while there's no dispute as to the amount of time that's passed right and  inquired there is some question as to whether or not he has any facts to support an ineffective assistance of counsel claim which may explain why none of the four prior lawyers that it was a legitimate issue but that's that's what the board did it looked at all of that and it said there's no due diligence here therefore as a matter of law there is no entitle me and i understand how that's different from of the first circuit was looking at him well i mean first of all the first ticker hardly circuits decision but more importantly i think what's important to realize is that the context under which the first work was working on germany is completely different from from the circuits law and that let me try to give an example in  was reviewed on and on an abuse of discretion standard but the question of whether equitable tolling should be applied in circuit gonzalez the court decided quote the equitable tolling doctrine is read into every federal statute of limitations that's in a way implying that it derives from the statute itself because the very concept derives from the statute because it's read into the statute of limitations and then it went on to say after going into the specific facts of that case concluded that in that case the board quote should have then i mean the excuse me the statute of limitations quote should have been told by the board it didn't review it for a substantial evidence decisions and declare that by definition if a legal error is committed it can't it constitutes an abuse of discretion that's actually exactly i've probably gone about a very roundabout way of doing that but that's novo review standard however in a case like this where there is a finding that equitable tolling should not apply to the to the motion to reopen that's a question that derives direct derives directly from the statute  this court has repeatedly applied a de novo standard and view the record as a whole to determine whether the board erred as a matter of law in failing to apply acquittal tolling and then after deciding that then reviews the motion to reopen an factual question is not one that is a question of law or constitutional claim for purposes of the jurisdictional bar under two forty two a tuesday and therefore the courts not have jurisdiction to address the question i also want to make very clear that even if the court petitioner believed that his his counsel before the immigration judge two and a half plus years before had not brought out his remorse for his underlying aggravated felony was the petitioner was there when the immigration judge thousand i do appreciate the attorney general certainly appreciates the burden of the immigration docket imposed on this court which is one of the reasons why the attorney general is attempting to vindicate congress efforts to limit your search and review gratuitous petitions for a view from aggravated felons like