he adequately represented because your honor when an adult is represented as hires an attorney to represent a minor the attorney acts at the direction of the adult so where in the record it appears that the adult is unable or unwilling to represent the interests of the advocate for a child but why would what would make us think that a mother would not want to do everything that she could to get her child into the united states well your honor it's not that where we think that that's too high a standard to determine that an immigration judge needs to take what we're asking for here is where it appears where there's some one mission in the record that makes this elise raises our awareness that perhaps the adult here is not representing the interests of the child the immigration judge at least hold a full hearing on the merits and that the adult there after the so we've had a full and fair opportunity we had notice that that was what was the what they needed to come back to the second hearing with and nobody came back with that evidence well now that is what we contend was part of what should have put the immigration judge on notice that gotten the records from the school or if as a judge by the indicated even to this day but now it's not part of the record if there's some basis some equitable basis to consider that maybe there is something out there that needs to be considered perhaps someone could bring it forward but the fact that it has not occurred seems to me to be indicative of the fact that there is no such evidence and therefore no matter how good the lawyer was no matter how devoted the mother might be it ultimately gets down to the same thing if this young man was not in the united states prior to the date of the change in the law he's out of luck is that right that would be so i'm i'm i would love to have some help from you as to what what's the remedy here is it seems to me that this claim that you're making now should have been made to the intentions is saying we really got to protect this class of people it would involve potentially tens of millions of dollars across the country to provide counsel for people who are are  adults whose parents don't maybe speak english very well don't understand things very well and moreover in this case you have a situation where not only do you have the mother there but you have a lawyer who was there who represented they went off that they had a little sidebar with the client and a sidebar with the judge talked about these things in terms of the answer i mean that's fairly good representation compared to a lot of things that we see the facts just aren't very good for your case frankly counsel can you help us with anything that would it help help put this in a better light as well your honor i think first i would say that we're not contending that in every case council has to be a point of mine what's that what's the standard we believe if there's a question in the immigration judges regarding whether the parent of the adult w with the minors able to adequately represent that child's interest but here but here you have the a parent and a lawyer by definition the lawyer is representing the child in this case right at the direction of the parent i understand that but he still purports to represent the the child so you're saying that these that are not to be that the i g i to evaluate what the lawyer is doing and in effect make his own his or her own ineffective assistance of coun determination is that what you're saying no your honor what we're saying is that where there is a question about whether the adult why would that be why would it be a question why should there be any question in the judge's mind the mother and the son are not adverse here there should be any question that they're not adverse here is there any reason that the judge should think that they're adverse now but we don't think that adversity is the only situation in which a parent maybe and give over what what else should have other than the fact that they failed to come forward with the proof and an i j is going to see whether her son was eligible for temporary protected status so it was a little bit unusual that she would come to that hearing without that kind of information if the second issue would be at the next at the very second hearing the first order of business to granting the mother temporary protect the in the court room that suggested that the mom had decided this was a really good way to foist off the raising of her of her child on her parents who remain in el salvador now and that we might say that there's good reason here for there's an incentive here for her to want to be able to get herself into the united states but center child back where becomes the financial and social responsibility of somebody else she's an unfit mother that might be something that would she and i generate with any evidence of that on the record i don't think the evidence goes as high as that i think with the evidence does this raise a question about perhaps whether she has that kind of a motivation and what we're saying is that where you have a hearing like this with a minor in the minors vulnerable and you don't get the minors voice anywhere in the record the immigration judge the immigration judge didn't explore whether potentially facts like that might exist and how more specific can you get than they have a direction to bring the documentations to the next terry your honor we feel that that was there is the second that is part of our concern for this record was directed to bring this caucus with her to the next hearing and they don't hear the mystery and there's no follow up from anyone in that room none of the adults in that room followed up on that point well whose obligation is it when we feel that in this case where it's a minor there's a question of whether the adult is adequately representing minors interests it is both the immigration judges responsibility to this full hearing on the merits and in the first instance it would be of course the responsibility of the adult who is representing interests but if there is not an adult there doing that if the judge if the judge during that hearing had turned to her and said at the last hearing i told you to bring the documents with you bring us bring his report card bring something do you have those with you and she litum i'm sorry i'm i i think i might understand your question so if the immigration judge had asked her do you have the records and she said yeah asked did you bring them no i'm not sure at that point the immigration judge would have been in the position of needing to appoint a guardian ad litem at that point he would've been in the position of at least holding a hearing on the issues ok let me talk to mark and i'd like to hear what he has to say about when he arrived tell me why you didn't bring the school records with you at least explore the issue and if at that point she said i don't want to i rather just waive my we will hear from the government don't want to call it an adequate representation of counsel an adequate mothering i don't know what it is is the government's position that the issue of the appointment of a guardian ad litum or adequa issue of bringing it in you know constitutional claims more than this child a minor deserve adequate representation he had counsel there he had his mother's whose interests were aligned with him there  is documentary evidence out there this is an issue of ineffective assistance of counsel and then they need to comply with the laws that are requirements down at the board but until then there is no claim here that this court can recognize representing him and the immigration judge did a fair job of getting to the heart of the issues and making sure that the minor son was that everybody there at the immigration proceeding understood that he w speaking specifically about the minors and that when they weaved that the claims for asylum was holding and protection under cat that they were specifically speaking about a minor son and in that situation the procedure was fair the second circuit has held that you don't need a minor with representation and even without a mother in law aligne with him is and quickly protected them further there's no error in the board affirming that immigration judge's decision the only issue before the the discussion that took place in the court of the mother's willingness to waive the other rights neck right absolutely and there's no error by the board there's no error by the immigration judge there was adequate representation and there is no error by the by the board and there's there's no due process issue here so the one relevant fact at that at the heart of all of this is the date of the petitioners entry into the  country and and how can we say that petitioner was not prevented from reasonably presenting his case where neither the attorney nor the mother could give us the date after specifically requesting extra information at the continued hearing the parent didn't provide that information that the attorney didn't provide that information and your questions were extremely on point petitioner's problem counsel still has not provided that information down at the board level for a motion to reopen so it's the government's contention that it's not that nobody tried nobody cared to help petitioner certainly they did he's just unfortunately in eligible for any you know there's no there's a fair trial but even beyond that there's no prejudice everything that is before the immigration judge has been granted voluntary departure was the last thing that's the that's there and there's no evidence of t p s eligibility there's question about whether he has evidence but that's not evidence that he was eligible and he was there before september twenty ninth two thousand and one there's no appropriate place for that through motion to reopen and that's that's kind of those positions that's the government's position i'm sorry so while we feel respectfully that this court does not have over specifically protected and made a fair hearing the board was proper in its decision to deny and if the record isn't complete in these fifty pages council has redress with the board to provide the evidence that shows that he was here before september twenty ninth two thousand and one or in the alternative show that  allegedly ineffective counsel all the way through the id proceedings this court does have jurisdiction to look at the due process violation we would argue that there is a similar situation here where the mother which is not where there is a question of whether the mother was able to adequately