good morning your honor so your morning after see you may i would like to reserve two minutes as well sort of all the issues before the court in my case are whether or not my client had effective assistance of counsel and whether the court should have granted a continuance so my client could get new counsel the facts on my case are that i have a spanish speaking client with virtually no education if you hire an attorney to represent him in removal proceedings arguably there's a question about whether he assisted his telling him that come into the office and prepare for trial so as far as he knows he has an attorney that's working for him getting ready for his trial this very little bit of an unusual case that link at least i find it so for one reason which counsel was allowed to withdraw in the case went forward is that right that's exactly what the immigration judge advised the client we have no idea there's no record of it the only thing we have is the order terminating rate my client shows up for trial assuming that he has counsel who is prepared for him and is ready to assist him only to find out for the first time that he's had in the train that hasn't been preparing form and is in fact being relieved on the date of his trial somebody because of the immigration hearing is when you signed the application and that didn't happen his client is counsel was removed for some reason from i can infer from the record the court was in the paper record is there a copy of the application i believe there is you get signed at the trial that's when those are typically signed because all the documentation is now before the court the parties are all present before the court and in my experience whenever i do a trial of that nature that is the point in time when the judge says you may sign the application now and then they ask you is everything in here correct in actors or anything you wish to add or modify there's a box here marked with drawn he could have checked that but he didn't write well withdrawn would mean it was voluntarily withdrawn by my client my understanding of what happened is that the court was not a form of fingerprints have been taken and the documents are not been submitted so the preacher made of the application essentially didn't when i was incomplete and he just denied he denied it because in his opinion it had been abandoned because tell anyone in writing here's my client's claim money extreme hardship i did not address that issue in my file i should why should we provide relief i'm approaching this from a purely due process issue my client did not have representation or get an opportunity to present its case but when you're you're the third lawyer yes or the second lawyer filed the motion yes we had the opportunity to show how he would demonstrated the requirement of extreme unusual hardship to the us children and as i read it all he said is i pay child support and i exercise my right to visitation that's all he was going to prove right that's the way i read it as well your honor however you can surely that doesn't come anywhere close to meeting your requirement for cancellation of being extreme and unusual hardship because it now your honor in on the application that once admits it doesn't ask for those grounds either that's usually taken through testimony which my client didn't get to offer a second lawyer and he filed a motion didn't come forward with anything that he was going to present he didn't show any prejudice did he i would say that he showed prejudice from the standpoint that my client didn't get an opportunity to present present evidence in the trial court i would agree that the motion to reopen a somewhat devoid of any facts that would meet that was ok in this type of procedure to file a motion to reopen in twelve of the i got a really good case so i don't need to tell you what it is right now but give me a chance to rehear this thing i'll tell you all of you know i wouldn't agree with that assertion on it well isn't that what happened i think in part maybe what happened but the bigger issue here is whether or not somebody is a title they have representation this what you've just described pursuant to rule or regulation this idea that no transcript is the i know that these proceedings before the i j a are normally take recorded that the tape recording is not a person transcribed and there's a certain type of the field with the it is that person regulation i am not aware of any regulation in that regard i think it's more the practice but i do think it would be the  you from one judge's point of view it is an awful practice in any other court civil administrator the federal or state you come before an appellate court and there's no transcript in it's your responsibility to provide it normally you lose now it may or may not have impact in this case but it is a perfectly awful practice your honor as a criminal attorney in my day job i was difference that is correct your honor that is absolutely correct and i think should be pointed out that this lawyer in this case really did i had much better jobs for example than i'm the lawyer in the cu aliens saying we need your documentation you have eight months to get your documentation even so that does not excuse the lawyer or abandoning the client in any time before an orders entered discharging the lawyer correct i the tribunals enters an order discharging them correct correct that she did put on notice the client that if he didn't provide the required documentation which of this requires in march of zero three before the hearing usually means you move to withdraw and you move to continue so that the client will have an opportunity to get other counsel or compared to defend themselves isn't that the basic requirements of ethical responsibility for coun says he couldn't he was unable to because of language problems it is brief says that he did not answer properly we don't really know whether that means that he said now or whether he stood  e or whatever but he did not answer properly ethically for counsel to do what they did is if the client had consented to it for full disclosure in advance otherwise the lawyers obligated to continue to work diligently until their discharge is or any scenario that you can put to me in which it would be ethically proper for the lawyer to have taken the client to the hearing be discharged their leave the client high and dry at the hearing without having  three the reason there is no appeal of the cancellation because it was never heard that's the simple response of that in my years of practice and albeit it's limited it's only ten years every time i file any type of the appeal the service has always been responsible provide the transcript know the records devoid of that i have to assume now is the practice when there is an appeal form of the motion to reopen to transcribe every prior hearing in the file in addition to the one that is being appealed i'm sorry in my experience ye s the client in the court's opinion at the time that the client had been not working with his counsel had been stalling delaying that's the way the court is most likely doing this because of the motion of the relief so of course once counsels relieved and he asked for more time to get new attorney the court thinks it's another stall tactic so i can understand why they didn't grant a continuance to get new counsel the court didn't know what was going on in to expect the client to spontaneously be able to practice on represented self after he's been abandoned by