lost sight of a plant that was the reason why the board of immigration appeals and the immigration judge denied the motion to reopen we don't understand how you can file a lawsuit on a motion hiring another attorney and it was found the other issue is everything in this unfortunately was not done correctly even the original nine hundred ninety five immigration before the judge the government did not address the issue of change circumstances in fact the immigration judge when he denied the motion felt the documentation did not reflect that but i don't know how to address that and think you can she showed changes by showing her personal tracks that she could return right now that nobody's going to harm her the mudras who murdered her mother had been apprehended and the party and the people who had killed i understand that she has a future and going back there was no change in her mind she was let out based on an officer's evaluation she had a well founded fear and into india who she would be killed in a solemn office or an immigration officer at actually it's not problematic for her because she felt from her day first day she wanted present her case before a court she was unable to she wanted to present her facts to show how her mother had been murdered and why she had been murder for helping the minority population in a state of gujarat and she was unable to she never had a hearing that's another issue the third issue is changed circumstances and the work felt that basically the documents showing that there is no time and here as due diligence was properly analyzed extensively by the board the there is no reason it would be moved to remand this case simply to apply a standard where the analysis was already present  yes the board did reject her claim no well she she said she represented in an affidavit that her attorney or presented however there is nothing in the record indicating a notice of appearance there's nothing in the record indicating that she filed a disciplinary complaint against him all we have is her word that she called him a few times and yet between one nine hundred ninety five and two thousand and ten she can't maintained that he was her attorney and yet she apparently found out that he was deceased in two thousand and nine or two thousand and  he had been deceased as of two thousand and six meaning she had made no effort to communicate or to to find out what has been what had been going on in her case and the standard under way is what is the reason what would a reasonable person  a reasonable person have discovered her attorney's ineffective and certainly reasonable person would not have expected the hearing to have taken ten years or more to be scheduled and in this matter it's not reasonable for an individual to rely on an attorney who does not give her any information about her hearing despite the fact that she was personally served at the end personally served with her notice claiming that she had a hearing within just a few months and the notice itself said that she would not receive another this and it was interpreted for her so her personal service is very clear she was notified that she had a hearing and that she was forced to be there within a few months now mediately she leaves the jurisdiction hires a new attorney hires an attorney and yet for over a decade has no makes no effort based on the record to find out what is happening in haiti and under those yes i mean that she certainly failed to exhaust the board's error in regards to the stand that was used but that is not the dispositive issue even assuming she exhausted that argument there still i right is the government is only contending that she failed to exhaust the air that the board made in regard to the standard that was used that's the only argument that the government made in regards to failure to exhaust and and the government made the alternative argument because quite frankly to failure to exhaust with respect to do diligence i'm merely saying that because due diligence is the to sponsor a factor in this case regardless of the regulation that's used it's it's not as important the fact that to exhaust the standard what's more important is that regardless of the standard she did not the snow any do voters who were into us if we don't have jurisdiction i'm not arguing that your honour's don't have jurisdiction in regards v motion to to rescind requires that she be duly diligent in filing a motion and therefore because she has not shown due diligence she cannot even if she failed to exhaust the actual error that the board made in a finding a legal standard the due diligence advice to both of those so it doesn't matter actually which standard issues that are the other factors that show that miss a here was not due diligence is the fact that upon learning that her counsel had passed and therefore she had no information about her case she waited another two years before she hired mr serin and the motion to reopen was filed and that is also showing a lack of due diligence on her part and this court has held consistently that a petitioner who waits two years or longer to take steps to reopen a proceeding has failed to demonstrate due diligence certainly be one case and the room suitcase also present evidence that waiting a significant amount of time such as fourteen months or two years or longer is is not a duly diligent strategy in this case miss and here did not show that she the frequency of the phone calls that she made to her attorney she did not inquire as to why her hearing had been taken more than a decade to to be placed in a courtroom she did not inquire as to why she was told that she had legal status in the united states and could stay and two thousand and twelve when she filed for motion to reopen and without that information be there is no prima facia case of asylum there is no information regarding her person for fear of persecution because it's not clear that she i believe we discussed this in our brief regarding judicial notice on page fifteen of our brief and certainly the judicial notice is taken  case where every man was otherwise warranted but a governor would present the argument that remained is not warranted here this is a very clear cut based on all the case law on the circuit she has gone well above and beyond the timeline or the margin of error percentage given to petitioners who are not in understanding the immigration process she has we did over a decade to make any indications that she should maybe check on her case specifically where in her motion to reopen she even concedes that her own husband has been through this process so she must have been aware that petition for review or that an inept censure hearing would be pending because her husband also had a petition for review before the ninth circuit essential issue so it's not reasonable under the wing test for an individual such as innocent here to not have any idea at all of the steps that should be taken in order to file a motion to reopen and to complain against her former there is no there isn't is the result that they denied a petition for review for failure to show to failure to rebut the presumption that he received notice of his hearing because he also failed to appear for his his removal hearing and he was puzzle it took us years to recreate this fine you have a person you have a name you don't know where this person is and where this person had their hearing and to find a case takes a long time and we asked and we got help from the fourth and she's shown due diligence at every stage at every level counsel is also assuming facts stating that she knew she knew nothing starting from day one she had no sort of fight interpreter we don't even know who the inter is the interpreter refuses to give the name address there's no way i can contact the interpreter to find out what interpretation that person the immigration naturalization service is used a nonstarter file interpreter released a sixteen year old she wasn't actually sixteen but he believes she was sixteen in the evening in new york and said come back for a hearing allegedly in two weeks to months we don't know if that's true she didn't speak a word of english so this is all assump fact by counsel this woman has done everything diligently she's raised her children she is working on minimum wage she's done everything to abide by the law she has no criminal conduct and she's exercise and hired three attorneys resent her case before you and all she is asking is an opportunity to file for us one child was born in ninety seven and one in ninety nine for the ninet he she she has a remedy she has a remedy for cases reopened and sent back to the immigration court where we can work it out with the government to ask for her we paper you would need to prevail here to be a right that's the asylum before the immigration warrant which would take time and would rip a lot of her today and adjust if there was some new law but i've this time the only way she can remain in this country legally case of her fear of going back when she came to this country in one thousand nine hundred five she said her mother was killed by the present ruling party of india she has a fear of going back and that hasn't been addressed