failed to address mr wrong his prior counsel's and effective assistance of counsel in front of the board itself second the board failed to deem mr monkies motion as unopposed third the border  appeal stated or excuse me the board's decision on the appeal stated that mr monti waited sixteen months in order to file his motion to reopen while that is technically correct it was actually thirteen months after the deadline for the appeal more to really the lack of diligence begins there the department of justice and the does argue that he was aware of the ineffective assistance of counsel i believe that's a misapprehension of mr montes argument mr monti stated that he could tell that the immigration  frustrated with his counsel and that there was tension there however mr monkee indigent and detained throughout these proceedings did not understand that what his attorney was asking him to do was ineffective assistance of counsel and the fact that his evidence i mean even beyond what judge loken is getting at you have there's two sides reasons as to why he was duly diligent so to speak you have you have he was in detention and you have you didn't get his files but there's problems with both of those so isn't there a failure of proof here which means by necessity there's no abuse of discretion no your honor i disagree so tell me the proof on both of those things exactly what you presented to that you know before the someone who will even address a fifteen hundred page administrative record for free his accounts were frozen because his attorney attempted to access his funds without his permission including his retirement account all of this is proven in documents showing that  mr money was handcuffed i mean both literally and figuratively because he could not reach money he could not access evidence while being detained and beyond that what about the detention  claim that he was he was detained is there any evidence in the record as to where he was detained or how long when the detention began the there is evidence that he was detained throughout the proceedings all of the trial transcripts show that he was present that he was present through video teleconference because he was in detention it does not state the exact detention facility in which he was detained however in his statement his sworn statement which the board had zero issues accepting this is true he stated that he was released within the last month and his counsel that sworn statement was executed in november so we can say more last october he was released the record shows that counsel after us we began seeking hi file immediately upon him contacting us and we had to wait another month and immigrant is when did that happen did that happen a month or two before the the ocean was filed when you started seeking the records immediately when one month before it was filed immediately upon contact by mr hmong the record shows multiple phone calls multiple e mails from our office to mr bell demanding his file and mr bell's continued obvious case and we still don't have a complaint that's a problem because if it didn't start twelve armaan fifteen depending on how you calculate it you know i understand mr i want he was in a terrible situation with a terrible lawyer but that doesn't show diligence mice he in less you can show that he started of his ability to to appeal to this court prior counsel's ineffectiveness completely deteriorated mr monty's ability to know what to do in order to be diligent the moment he was released from detention she sought help from us and elian is only allowed one motion to reopen and based on ineffective assistance of counsel it would be our own ineffective assistance if we didn't leave the record before filing it if we file an incomplete motion to reopen then we are guilty just as much as mr bell was our office worked as hard as we could as did mr monty in order to fight this this constant obstruction from his private tony who knew that what he had done was wrong he knew he had tried to access our client's retirement friends he knew he presented a fake expert report we've got a rule twenty eight j talking about fact that counsel was suspended was counsel suspended because of what happened with mr wong or was it entirely based on a separate matter it was it was based on his in misappropriation o funds from mr wanky or from other cases so mr i'm wanting cases under advisement however mr one does not have it's easy of a case to prove misappropriation of funds we believe we've proven it however the cases i believe there's tens of thousands of dollars that mr bell has taken from personal injury cases this money is much easier to track takes twenty two thousand dollars that should be going to his client he deposit it deposited into his bank and then the very next day it's overdrawn he literally taken that into his pocket so mr bell's practice shows that this is a pattern and practice of his and it shows that he has every right to try to obstruct mr long from being able to make a complaint against him an indigent detained immigrant at his mercy i believe talking about the extreme level of this ineffective assistance of counsel that the board erred in finding that this didn't prejudice him from the attorney of aiding and the expert report himself presenting it from someone who isn't even an expert in the requiring his client to repeatedly read from that report as if it were his own testimony these facts alone show that mr morgan was prejudiced finally the the prior counsel submitted what is tantamount to a word salad brief to the board of immigration appeals he waived almost all of the substantive issues in mr moore and his claim for asylum and holding the removal the board didn't even address that the board england behalf of the attorney general of the united states the petitioner in this case filed an untimely motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel before the board of immigration appeals the board did not abuse of discretion in denying that on time the motion given that the petitioner did not demonstrate due diligence in the filing of the motion or prejudice on account of his former counsel's actions first with regard to do diligence as the board stated the petitioner did not demonstrate that he promptly things about counsel's misconduct when he was released from jail the board says when were you in jail when did you get released what did you find out that made you contact new counsel when did you contact new counsel all of these are power part of petitioners burden to demonstrate to the board that he was diligent in filing the untimely motion additionally the board looks at what petitions are new during the hearing even before the board issued its decision and in the motion to reopen there's an exhibit attached that is petitioners declaration and in that declaration the petitioner himself states that it became clear at the hearing that the immigration judge and the department homeland security trial attorney knew that his former counsel was a charlatan that his petitioners wording is saying that became clear at the hearing all of that supports that the board did not abuse its discretion and finding the petitioner of the words who should have time once he found out he had made a blood  we look as to whether there's a reasonable probability that the immigration judge's decision would have been different if the petitioner had been represented by competent counsel before before you get there i just want to ask the other thing that i asked opposing counsel which is i don't want to leave the whole due diligence point because you have another element if somebody has been spending it for stealing client money we now have that in a rule twenty eight jag and you have the files not being handed over or at least delayed what reopen and looking at the exhibits that were submitted with the motion to reopen there were twenty exhibits submitted with a motion to reopen nineteen of the twenty only talk about former counsel's misconduct they don't talk about the merits of the case of the substance of the case only one document does and that is the declaration from the petitioner on page forty one through forty three of the record and that is what touches on the merits of his asylum withholding claim and that declaration he  returning to kenya because of an inheritance issue and distant relatives issues that he's having with us and relatives that completely lines up with what the immigration judge and the board found which is that petitioner has a personal land few with his uncles that is not a basis for asylum or withholding of removing that is not one of the numerated grounds that your well founded fear of persecution must be on account of so even looking at what would have been presented had petitioner had competent counsel there the board did not abuse its question and finding that there is not a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different i  of the due diligence issue and the president of the prejudice issue can be separated the do the due diligence has to do with the untimely filing of the motion to reopen the in effect the lack of prejudice has to do with any claim for an effect of assistance of counsel thank you and judge woman i disagree i believe that you are very good at expressing what you're trying to say to counsel because what you are addressing with the department of justice right now about harmless they are tough a lot for my guy goes to what matter of l a explains which judge loken you are also asking do we have to show prejudice yes we have to show prejudice and yes we have to show that this person did what they could in order to rectify that prejudice on able to explain land inheritance rights the immigration judge your honor there have been cases around the country and other circuits that recognize that kenyan land inheritance rights can be a basis for asylum further a client tries to express other b a decisions and one job our client was attempting to make a claim to discuss that his uncle's hired to the moon geeky to persecute him and this did not come across even though he attempted mr bell kept directing him back to an art history report that hope are not too many but there are some have to differ a separate that from the underlying the aliens ability to present their case that is were that is prejudice and that is that warrants reopening and that's exactly what happened here thank you anderson yeah well prove that are