whether there was an abuse of discretion by the courts below and not allowing petitioner just sufficient time to properly prepare and document his motion to reopen and the nd is whether fraudulent representation by a motion was filed and the attorney was limited to requesting all print documents the freedom of information act request which is standard practice then petitioner could not submit a declaration based on facts he was not aware of if anything the only things that he was aware of at that time was that he had a part order removal and that he believed an attorney that he later consulted with that there was nothing he could do about that case since then there had really not been any reason for him to know that the actions by the or the subsequent attorney that he consulted acted in effectively petitioner's attorney was held and petitioner was held to have a full understanding of petitioners case within a matter of just a few weeks he filed his his his his motion and within less than a month that petition was there was a decision on that motion although he also had foyer request our process it is the government's argument however that petitioner did not petition or not only should have been fully appraised of facts that he never had a reason to doubt but that he should also have filed a petition for review while he also had a pending withholding convention against torture claims to focus on while also being detained i would argue that that is just discretion a respondent to file a petition for review while he still has a pending case and also would be against discords interest because it would cause further litigation and then just finally  court has reviewed similar cases and has found that that is sufficient cause and does not require levada compliance to have the not to refrain from not faulty advice petitioner what have attended his hearing and he would have had been given an opportunity to meaningfully request his release also very briefly since i have the time i would the in terms of jurisdiction for the initial case the notice to appear it did not include them in creation of court address the n t a and that is required by both the statue and the regulations so that fifteen years to file a motion to reopen yes he well he did your honor i essentially but the only reason he did that is because after he found out time he was told there was nothing to be done so and you know his most recent detention in two thousand and seven when he spoke to his most recent counsel mr helt and there was no question of what he could do in fact he only wanted consideration that when he did file and the appeal for the motion to reopen and then tried to then reconsider that that decision which was actually take it taken out that a motion to the applicants not not proving that it was impossible for him to be able to move to anywhere else in his country so in essence that's the argument here that it's not it wasn't the applicant's burden to was twelve hours by police not physically by police that he knows of but the police actually took him under the false claim that he had stolen a purse and taken to an unknown location or he was the tortured we would we would note that the beatings were not minor even though he didn't go to the hospital does not mean that he didn't suffer emotional distress and mental suffering during if we disagree on the motion to reopen with you if we agreed with the government on the motion to reopen do we even reach any of these other merits issues or are they independently before they  i mean i think there there would be no i would still be married and him being able to revisit the issues with convention against torture however if he if the court did agree with petitioner that he would be my name is both hands and i'm going to turning at the justice department here i'm behalf of william barr and there are two overarching issues in this case one is one that's been talked about in some detail whether or not the board abused discretion and denying petitioners untimely number barred motion to reopen based on an effective assistance of counsel and just answer your question about whether or not these petitions for review merge whether or not the motion to reopen merges with the disputes d so that even if the board found that the motion was timely equitably told all the way back to when you st discovered the air in two thousand and one the motion would still be february of two thousand and one and you could find that in the st record page one hundred and twenty eight and so any alleged error had no bearing on the outcome of the removal proceedings themselves so there is no due process violation and the final ground that they don't challenge is the fact that no effort was undertaken to comply with the matter lose out a requirement in the mornings decision even acknowledged that these requirements need not be rigidly enforced but in this case the petitioner made mil effort whatsoever to demonstrate what other actions were taken to try to comply with loser requirements or whether or not the error was plain from the face of the record during every piece of evidence but it's clear from the decision itself that it did consider the record as a whole and regulate that decision it was talk all the time to the record side of the law it just wasn't a boilerplate decision that's sufficient to conclude that the board did consider the and i jump in here this is yes and i can ask a couple question just want to be sure i'm clear about your answer suggests more about questions also st of all i think i understood your position that your position the government's position is that the b i a did in editions i believe it to include one is that it can rely on the immigration judge's decision and finding in the kit i think it was pretty explicit that they did so but also even ignoring let's just say they didn't even incorporate the immigration judge did not require them to prove that it was impossible and so i think what is your position on what the b i a you know i think i think that the case a judge we're ny him you know cat protection foley because re internalization it's impossible because words are never even used to step back and look they did what they were supposed to do under the regulation they're supposed to look at any role the factors that bear on the likelihood want to you know go out there without really knowing for sure i want i want to be sure when i answer yes yes i am appreciate that challenge so if you want if you want to do a short  the though the applicant argues immigration judge held the proven through internal relocation was impossible and then it goes on to basically reach the conclusion that that the immigration judge didn't hold them to that burden to show that it was impossible so