which begins with the tantalizing dated order of september seventeenth two thousand and three took the immigration service report just now it's called executive office for immigration review and there's been another name change as we all know department of homeland security but for the sake of argument today the immigration service took them about five years to make a decision five pages long that decision  what happens next the court knows because we have the record of proceeding here we have a motion filed and that motion attempts to bring before the court an application for adjustment of status and immigration you have to get in line ahead of us or an immediate relative you have to get in line to be able to get a visa number filed a visa petition for him but that leaves a number continues and back then in two thousand and one we're still at least fourteen fifteen sixteen years away told and there's been one motion filed two motions three motions and the board of immigration appeals so that you know today with the latest submission  the seven years there is no benefit to him by the lane and as we all know now the court has been inundated with immigration cases because headquarters has decided to move all of these cases that think come forward are right folks let's hold off we're not going to deport these probes that are affected by the stop time or if they would otherwise be eligible to apply under the ten year statute so they promulgated the rules said in the legal terminology putting this case into a position exactly what are you asking us to do to allow you to order to remain and so that the case would be reopened under the rules of the department rules they would at ministry of the close the case and then proceed to repay print the case that's what they would do the deportation would stop by their own rules if the board they would then hold the case in abeyance and they have hundreds of these cases and that same posture we have a motion to reopen that was the nine and now we have a motion to reconsider the motion to reopen which was denied and you're asking for yet another shot for us to order the case reopened we are under these particular circumstances because the circumstances here have this is our time now before this court to to lay out what we have and  what our ground to be that somehow even though there have been too shy to look at this that we should order reopening because of equitable coaling you have you have a number of cases just here in the circuit second motion to reopen is what evidence in the record would have required the board to conclude that the because attorneys failed to render affective representation and or whether any of their actions prejudiced his question airy and requires a showing of among many other things extreme hardship to the alien and or qualifying relative at the time of these hearing in march of one nine hundred ninety six  hardy had only one qualifying relative in the united states a two year old child mr maoris parents had not yet come to the united states and his second child had not yet been born there is no evidence in the reco case of extreme hardship the case law of the board in this court establishes that without more an alien couple with a young child or the young us citizen child who could clearly return with his parents to the philippines and  rejoin the other two children and the mariza family in the philippines including currently their parents cannot establish the extreme hardship again mr haris property no evidence showing either that his indication of that there was any agreements with respect to any other application for relief from removal and there's no evidence that mr kaufman who again had been retained solely to represent him with respect to the asylum application was made aware of any facts which would establish a crime a fish a case of extreme hardship that's there's no evidence to show either that the attorney hired to prosecute the asylum application was in any way negligent in not arranging to prosecute failing to conclude that attorney kaufman had been negligent and that if he had been such would have prejudiced mr maryse mr contrary to the seeming assertion in the petitioner that frankly i'm just not that familiar with you seem to draw a very bright line between the asylum process and the application firsthand suspension of deportation is it proper to draw that bright line and say that the mr cochran was only retained for one when it seems to me that they're trying to reopen the proceeding that mr copland was retained to to handle for the purpose of making this application i know it's you see what i mean i mean i'm not sure i do not well why the asylum application and there's no evidence that mr cockman was asked to file a suspension application but this and that automatically flow from this type of a process when your asylum eligible it would have been reasonable to assume that they would have agreed that if these are all included in the same process the way i've been looking at it for fifty it's well it's not because you don't you don't apply for relief you're not eligible for m suspension of deportation and as i've explained he didn't seem to have the ability to establish extreme hardship given that there was no negligence in not following suspension i mean obviously you can't expect an he didn't have the seven years necessary and where there's no indication that there's extreme hardship both of which are requirements and again when he had to seven years in october of one thousand nine hundred seventy and between that and when he lost in april first  not exceptional hardship which is extreme hardship which is required to establish suspension of deportation mr one hundred will suggest that his class are caught in a time warp and if we order this matter be reopened that it will be that what will happen you know your honor why not because he's not eligible for suspension of deportation he doesn't have seven years to stop time rule cut him off he moreover even assuming for the sake of argument mr cochran believes he could muster an extreme hardship argument as we explain our brief it would have been reasonable to assume that the stop time rule enacted before october nothing to do with the case well we can't decide what has to do it again oh your honor i apologize and i didn't mean to give quite that impression i certainly didn't mean to say that i do want to say as we say in our as we as we relate in our brief to the court has held equitable we might disagree as to how strong the basis is your honor but you know i certainly don't think this is a frivolous appeal  something that now comes after april first one nine hundred ninety seven prior to april first one thousand nine hundred seventy the law is you can be here without anyone you can be here by yourself and you can qualify for suspension of deportation bernstein indicates that this would be a case where the rule would apply it is exactly these types of cases that the department has addressed the repaid green provision and the onto the other side so that a new trial the new complaint and we begin anew what are the consequences if you use this case they will be removed ordered removed from the united states