good morning it please the court but only good news for the petitioner mr blanco this matter involves an appeal of a judge's motion to reopen now there was some confusion as to whether or not the board of immigration appeals made a decision the motion to reconsider or the motion to reopen the historical process of this case is petitioner was represented by various different attorneys they changed from one attorney to another there's one  the appeared on behalf of a second attorney and that second attorney says he never even heard of the client so there isn't a clear indication of who was representing him when my the petitioner believed throughout the process that the one person a signed contract with mrs weil was the one representing him when the case got the night by the immigration judge he returned to his belief of who his attorney was miss wheel and requested assistance in the peel through some misunderstanding and through some miscommunication in the pews that miss we'll refer them to another person to file an appeal this appeal was not filed my client did not discover this until he was detained  immigration at that point when he was detained a year later the family was unable to find the receipt he had received unfortunately his directions it was two blocks away in the tall building your honor we're not sufficient to locate that attorney however his belief was that he had retained competent counsel to file an appeal on his behalf now in denying the motion to reopen it's unclear it appears that the board also ruled in the motion to reconsider something that is also within the board's prefer the fourth has independent authority to certify case to themselves to reopen or reconsider a case however the process in which it was done was not proper because counsel was not given an opportunity to address the issues of the motion to reconsider now counsel having filed a motion to consider and having seen the decision raised some of the issues prison as a preemptive knowledge of what the board might be distracted and what might be some red herrings however the council was not addressing those as errors it was more preemptive in this is why the potential motion to you appealed only the motion to reopen the denial of the motion to reopen correct drama there was no appeal to the motion to reconsider it was my strategic decision that would be hard to appeal motion to reconsider than to appeal a motion to reopen what happens is although it is within the board's preview they did not follow the right process by doing this and it seems a little odd and awkward because it seems that much of the b i l s reasoning in rejecting on the case to be i consider the motion pre open in the first instance or would it be within our power to consider the petition of the review in this particular case on its merits i think it one of those would be appropriate charge the fact that the b i did not address an issue before it means it failed to consider it if the be a failed to consider the motion to reopen and then they committed error and this court can overrule the decision by the one in a decision on the motion to reconsider necessarily in compas the decision to deny reopening you're asked to reconsider the denial of reopening and they said correct your honor there would be some overlap your honor however prepared my appeal brief i focused on the motion to reopen the fact that i was had the benefit of the denial of the motion to reconsider so of a preview of what might be perceived as weaknesses in my case does not mean those issues were raised before the b i hey upon the b i denial the way the b i did now was formatted in the motion to reconsider i did now start to raise the issues more thoroughly before this court but before the b i a remarkable case in terms of the number of lawyers who were just based on this record extremely deficient in their in their work in their ability to  provide counsel to your client but mr moggs was provided to substantially different accounts of his hiring of the unnamed attorney which is i think something we have to focus on to file an appeal of the denial of his asylum application it looks like in his his declaration accompanying his motion to reopen mr maldonado allege that he contacted gloria will herrera set her name rector on to ask about an appeal and her office sent him to the unnamed attorney who he met and paid five hundred dollars for an appeal but in his declaration filed with the panel to the be i a e a mr alden adl stated that he went to sean beams office to ask about an appeal and the receptionist there referred him to the unnamed attorney so i guess my question even though the b i did not consider the inconsistency what version of events are you alleging as true your honor i think the result of this misunderstanding is the way the case was handled from the beginning the fact that miss weil in her contract says i'm going to delegate this to who i want the fact that there were three other attorneys who appeared on this matter i think that has led to confusion for someone because it was her who appears in the records having never been substituted out and having never been withdrawn from the case it was ultimately her responsibility and the peers achieved the only one who adopted a contract albeit it was a contract prepared by a disbarred attorney and if i'm well and so let's put aside any consistencies and focus on how your client was diligent because i think if we if we take some we have to see whether or not he was diligent and learning the identity of the attorney he hired for the appeal and it seems like in both of his declarations mr maldonado states that he personally met with the unnamed attorney and in both declarations he provides the name of the individual who referred the attorney to him i think it's just trying to figure out because it seems somewhat difficult to understand that mr malvo novel's brother or another family member or friend could not have easily discovered the identity of this sort of mystery attorney either by contacting the refer an attorney or going to the location where m time i have left but i would like to but i will ask that question when someone at the time even when the petition for it was filed my client was still in immigration custody there was not a bond hearing until after the petition for review was filed  court so what we would be asking is an attorney to admit who the person was referred to and with the conduct of these attorneys i'm not entirely sure it may have been a reputable attorney who was referred to it might be that this attorney referred him to a notary so now they're trying to identify and seems like he talked to that person he had enough to perhaps reconstruct to point to where that person is and he hasn't been able to to do that and the reason i ask this question i mean there's a lot of requirements that were you know to to consider and to look at in reviewing any you know allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel and so i just want to explanation with individual the taint unfortunately his method of directions they took me two blocks away to the individual i don't remember the floor that unfortunately without him being able to participate in actually physically looking for he was not able to comply with the requirements because he has not been able to identify the person but i think an attorney's office referring an individual for an appeal will have the obligation to refer it to a credible person i think may please the court proceeding morry for the government this petition for if you should be denied for two reasons first petitioner did not meet the laws out of requirements which are necessary for a viable ineffective assistance of counsel claim in this case and second details about the circumstances of the event so there's no accountability in this case your honor i mean he could have just made up this person since let me just because i know there was a lot of promise something we have to follow but i find this case very disturbing disclaims any knowledge of the case another lawyer who may have helped mr mcguire was disbarred at the time yet another lawyer has a disciplinary record with the state bar and on top of that i am sure that mr maldonado may have primary custody of his minor son who is qualified for daca relief and can stay in the country so there may be something i'm missing given all those facts and given the for serious crimes has declined any interest in consideration for for prosecutorial discretion and furthermore i did inquire with ice and they have declined pastoral discretion probably because he was convicted of some serious crimes in now on the issue of his prior counsel he never alleged ineffective assistance of counsel against all these attorneys that your honor just mentioned his allegation of ineffective assistance to this one mystery attorney so just to put everything in context we're looking at the motion to reopen here was that an error factor or a law in denying that the now the motion to reopen and the initial motion to reopen only had that one and a half page declaration  a request to review the transcripts and request c d s for the prior removal hearing that's it all the other evidence that was submitted on reconsideration on field to reconsideration were not considered because they weren't properly submitted with a motion to reopen so that's the first thing the motion to reopen supported just by his one of the happiest declaration and a very sparse argument that he doesn't need to say that he didn't know whose attorney was that you're basically outta luck with there's no categorical rule your honor it's just in this particular case the declaration is just it's it's it's unaccountable your honor if he just says he says everything that he can he's detained i mean i  just to me that's maybe the most significant thing if he's out and has the ability at least go and locate the place where he says this occurred but he's detained he is family or can't find the receipt that doesn't strike me as crazy i can't find receipts for stuff all the time you know so i don't know that happened a year earlier on the receipt he doesn't he doesn't know the name and given the way he was bounced around from you know six different attorneys in this case that doesn't strike me as crazy either and so you know it seems like on these facts maybe he's provided as much information as he can and you just say well if you can't give us more that's just too bad sorry is that i mean we have to rule well i don't think there's a categor fantasize at this time imagine at this time but what he could have done without saying that this is what he should have done is that he could have went to his former attorney gloria while her or who he said is the person who was in charge of his appeal he could have fallen in effect of sis's of counsel claim against her actually  since all of this appears to have stemmed from her the way she set up the representation and what she told him so it's really the way he structured the case here he's only targeted one attorney and that attorney he targeted pre briefing order filings the motion to reconsider was included and also after the the board issued its briefing order that the a copy of the immigration judges motion to now the motion to reconsider also appears would have to have considered the motion to reopen in this case to determine whether there was any error factor of law in denying that motion to reopen i mean that was the issue that was before the board and furthermore petitioners opening brief states in phatic lee i tell us  supplemental brief but the issue of just point to me i mean because normally you can point to me or you or your colleague here can point to us in the record where they issued an order same we consider the motion to reopen and we've ruled on where is there is not that your honor ok ok so the board does mention a motion to reopen its procedural history but it considers the motion to reconsider but in this case in order to decide the motion to reconsider the it's the exact same question as if you had appealed the motion to rules require that you file a separate notice of appeal from each order and wasn't the denial of the reconsideration motion a separate appealable order yes your honor as far as the aliens obligation however the board does have discretion to accept by certification did they do that today except by certification here implicitly so your honor because the certification does permit certification without following the procedural notices under section one thousand and three point seven o looks like they didn't consider what they were supposed to consider so you're saying we should make an exception for this case the board's decision in denying reconsideration necessarily considered the denial of reopening so if just to break judge reasonably affirm his prior decision that there was no error of fact or law in denying reopening and then if that issue were to come up here if that were the sole issue to be presented before this court it would still be presented with the exact same issue was there an because i want to ask this before you have you sit down but how can we evaluate the possibility of mr maldonado silent on appeal without any transcript because something you said right now just proffer me to in light of that transcript no your honor because again we look to what was submitted with the motion to reopen now petitioner had the c d s he looked at he listened to the tapes this is all part of what he had and what he chose to submit was motion to reopen was just the petitioners evidence and arguments that he was submitted at the time was it an abuse of discretion that the immigration judge denied reopening and the answer you're on is respectfully no thank you thank you  before the immigration court in this instance you are as i've outlined in the briefs involved in the silent claim in which there was a allegations of corruptions within the police right so there is a long history of case law now the immigration judge made a finding that the prior czerny's he was provided a full and fair hearing despite the multiple tourney's who were present however appellate review i think that is what brings the issue when i did it when it had been an incumbent upon the petitioner to present some in indication of how he was deprived of a fair hearing that there was information that was not provided that should have been for right or something along those lines well it's not that hearing was fair your honor it was that he was denied in the political view what we were requesting the great don't you have to show that it would have been a