motion to withdraw the immigration judge granted that motion and denied the request for a continuance to get a new counsel and proceeded on with this with the marriage hearing and ultimately  local rules would provide that such a motion to be in writing so as to give notice to the interested parties particularly the petitioner and believe that the immigration judge abuses discretion by allowing user so we believe that the the fact that he didn't have an attorney present his case and what can you articulate the prejudice the concern i have is that even if we even if i agree with you that  e should have been given a lawyer in light of his testimony what grounds is the have to demonstrate entitlement to with trial well you know what the we're going to do for him now  he can't retract the testimony and say it's not true but the test i believe the chest i'm on if you look at the transcript of hearing this is maybe fifty pages in there and maybe maybe fifteen of those pages have to do with his judge about why he was so were drawing and the next thing had to do with why the law the petition was ready to go forward and finally there's a few pages on actual testimony that was in the and then my the appeal to the board of immigration bother the lawyer will take care of it don't worry we'll and so here you have a guy who's trying to get a hold of his lawyer but can't find a lawyer shows up at the hearing and the first thing like that or i forget exactly what it was but and that's crucial we can look at that but the client mr hernandez has no time says i don't want a lawyer and then later on in his testimony indicates he wants a lawyer but the i j a is going forward with the hearing knowing this guy doesn't have a lawyer and and it really wants a lawyer and there be no indication that the failure of the lawyers to be ready on the case or a lawyer wanted it was any fault of this client that's kind of the capsules your case and so we say well then that was he had ineffective assistance of the prior lawyer you say ok that's fine and then just thomas says well in order for that to get even a benefit you have to show some prejudice might do in this case he might file a supplement to the asylum application wouldn't be much to reconcile some of the inconsistencies a lawyer with course would speak nasty appropriate cross examination questions and direct questions to help reconcile that additionally the harm done to petition he's got an adverse credibility ruling in his case which could effect any any further admissions since united states so that's pratchett that's the out of an adverse effect on his case yes you know but there are no i didn't i didn't know about the the proceeding how many cases i knew there was some big problem she knew that this jury was connected to or not other charities that have the same problem with the california state bar with respect to these kinds of cases asylum cases and most of those counts they are to perform legal services competently and the also  they're not concerned too much to let them and  regardless of if i may or i will guard the sofa of this guy thomas flung you know he's a he's a pretty rough character though now i understand he's the number two situation aside i think it's important to note the overall circumstances in this case this court has held repeatedly that there are no bright line rules that he's case must be dealt with on a case by case basis according to its own facts its own record  the the case this case may continue twice there was the initial hearing where he of additional was informed of his right to counsel he said he wanted counsel he was given a month to change castle that's pretty automatic counsel yes right then they show up and then they assign a hearing date right at the last you know that's not a continuance in my view over any particular time maybe that but it does sound like they're just sort of processing the case now when it does come on for still shows up he's had an incompetent disbarred lawyer who of lizzie's attorney he hasn't talked with he's called the fellow if you believe his testimony that he tried on five occasions honor that is not the way i read that the record the way i interpret the record as there is a between the judge and the lawyer on this issue where the lawyer says he has absolutely nothing to do with this alfredo del tran the you're talking about this just marred lawyer now yes roger but look i mean just going what's on the record there is a there is an exchange because first petitioner says i got off work at three thirty i would try to call my lawyer approximately four thirty i tried five times during this eighteen month period beltran at that point the judge describes what he's hearing as i mean he's i believe he's the phrase mutually he's hearing simply two mutually exclusive stories from the from the position as to why they're not ready to proceed on the morning of the hearing the first is i tried five times over an eighteen month period and didn't didn't get anybody and then i was part of story is why didn't i have his phone number but i try to use this this go between and then there's an exchange about that and and basically what it comes down to is the immigration judge is faced with a situation where he's given that eighteen months to prepare their case they show up the morning of of the hearing and are not prepared and it's for him to know that at that second hearing which i understand your point that that's just part of the process what he's told at that time that that was a belief in april two thousand and one he's told that his case is going to go forward approximately  months later in october of two thousand and two and that at that time he's expected to come forward with evidence and witnesses and that the evidence will be put on that day and that the and that the decision will be reached that's high despite this there's no contacts no effort to do anything to prepare going into he's got a rotten lawyer i mean it's obvious at this point that that's the guy and a stinker of a lawyer who didn't do anything shows up at the hearing and wants to get out of the case record that were entitle him to asylum didn't have a lawyer that was ruling or that was able man probably willing to help them with the story so he's story never going to come of this just a guy without a lawyer blurting out stuff and  you know i think that seems to me that that's a real problem and then in our country we ought to give these people that are in this kind of a situation a chance to have a hearing because the way it looks to me again it's a jury report that my colleague made in the parliament it we're looking at the record we're looking at whether this was an abuse of discretion based on what the ambassador hyland application that he signed in blank so you can't really say that his testimony would differ from the map so any inconsistency in that regard i think you have to put it maybe you could find some inconsistency in the testimony yes he doesn't speak english so he's testifying through an interpreter and  doesn't have a straight story and a lawyer certainly could enable him at least to have a straight story and perhaps get away from my incredible finding by the trier of fact but again there are even if found credible if you if you got to help them sometimes remember what's going on i see my my well you're probably thinking what's the use i got a judge here they want to go along with me but i'm just wondering it seems to me that the administration when it finds out something like yes would say hey this is a case where this guy and i have his hearing and you know maybe he can't show anything but at least he could have a hearing with a lawyer but is there anything you can do about  certainly when i return i will not when i get back to that when i get back to washington i can certainly notify the office of immigration education of your hours point i see you standing here i don't have