consolatory chang failed to do five major mistakes after reviewing the record first of all he failed to meaningfully address the credibility issue in his brief to the board of immigration appeals he also failed to address the issue of he failed to address the convention against torture eligibility in his brief in any meaningful way and five his failure to raise these issues precludes traditional review one under the exhaustion argument and in fact the that he was in that if he was ineffective in raising these things because when we would still deny relief in the strength of what occurred well i suppose what that does it leaves the petitioners in a fact in relying on the good graces the board of immigration appeals to ferret out the issues in a fully consider the case from the petitioners point of view certainly the board is that is a neutral arbiter and they're mean you know they found them incredible over the strikes me a lot of things that we found and found her incredible excuse we could have a competent lawyer could have done a decent job of making a record  pregnancy test about a week after the rape and the judge speculates saying well you know the court isn't aware of any test that could be administered within a week of a rape to find that whether a person was pregnant or not but if you go back and look at the administrative record hospital stay the immigration judge kind of runs with that that's never challenged i agree whole heartedly judge trager that fear the record is a poor record i'm the focus of the brief has been the shortcomings of attorney king and the board of immigration possible what we had to work with on the appellate issues were the record and we could see clearly that attorney king didn't raise all these issues these foundational issues which gave a nice circuit or would give the ninth circuit jurisdiction to consider them but i would agree that that there is a lack yes in fact we argued that in our brief the judge looked at something that he considers a very negative piece of evidence which was her bank passbook saying well there's transactions in your banking account in india in january two thousand and one  august thirty first two thousand and one but he spouts that saying well i'm going to use that to find you incredible but yet if you found that evidence to be credible evidence it clearly shows that she filed within one year so it in a way  can't find that to be credible evidence and then if this same time he used it to deny her on the one year bar i think what we pointed out in our brief is she testified that there were some transactions that her father did that she had left of checks and then he put deposits or made some transactions and that's why those transactions occur in january two thousand and one but she could have certainly taken that evidence and said hey here's proof that i was in india and now on here august thirty first two thousand once we make them one year she didn't do that because she testified credibly that that was her father's actions but looking at it by any definition it clearly shows she filed within one year that's what the evidence proves and it's hard i'm hard pressed to see it any other way  of counsel of attorney kank and also the mistakes made by the by the board of immigration appeals in their decisions and also ultimately the immigration judge in considering the record thank you  show that she actually didn't have those things within those dates she didn't she didn't show up when she actually left india for all we know she might have left india and may of ninety nine or in  yes it wasn't mr stenger but regardless the record shows that she was fully questioned about the timing when she left and yeah when she arrived in canada how long she stayed there when she came into the united states as much as could have been was that it from her was it just wasn't credible because she didn't establish it with any other any other crop aeration and the rest of her testimony was inconsistent it was inconsistent internally and with her other documentation and therefore the immigration judge had no way of gauging what was true and what was what was not based on her own answer is and her only proper documentation for example we have the fact that she clearly claimed eventually she had up out of valid passport didn't bring it with her and said she had a photocopy in the united states that she gave to that's true however she was in another area of india for a year or so since the incident that occurred that she was supposedly phalange you know she didn't have it in spain for about a year's time before leaving india she knew she was leaving and india for the treatment for rape the letter doesn't support that at all she also submitted a letter from the political organization she claims she was a number of but that she also said that her husband was a leader in the organization and to gather the organization the husband decided she needed to leave what it was and mentioning her husband was a member her husband was a leader doesn't mention that the organization was pivotal in getting her out of jail it doesn't mention that they recommended that she leave the country side you know representing her as a lawyer also recently on by this court probably spent probably two seconds for burying her and doing you know getting you know so you can you know board because here the board found that they they provided her with a full and fair education and during her appeal and they concluded that the immigration judge did not make clear error so she she could not disposition and on the ineffective assistance issue determining whether or not there is a due process right involves whether or not regardless of the due process right whether or not the agency has the ability to determine th assistance as a matter of discretion and also it's possible that the attorney general might determine standards such as what what is the proper level or showing of prejudice so those are the questions before the attorney general right now