in a they were arguing that they had a liberty interest in spain in the country and the court ruled that's a special relief there is no liberty interest in that form of relief so there's no due process violation we're not arguing that she the petitioner was entitled to the relief that she's claiming we're just arguing that she's entitled to procedural due process which in titles her to a full and fair hearing in this case she didn't have a hearing at all and what is the proper procedure and documents need to be submitted when we are attempting to reopen a case under a matter of the side of this petitioner did comply with every element of matter of aside we provided notice to prior counsel we provided the complete application for requests to believe including substantial evidence regarding the the elements of the claim so we believe we have made up the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel i have a question on the timing of the motion to reopen i concern is that it was my understanding is it was filed very very late and that the as i understand it the board of  so if we think they made a mistake on ineffective assistance of counsel wouldn't you still have a problem that the motion was probably the motionless filed as early  doesn't the board would wouldn't we have to remain and so the board could consider equitable calling because i as i read the record it didn't seem that the board made a determination that the that the petition was like that the petitioner has to show that somehow the lateness was excuse which which i don't think is or didn't say that so we would some out to deal with that i think to go ahead you better get to your merits correct the in terms of showing the prejudice i believe that was fun and has the flexible standard in correct the standard by prior counsel in his defense of the motion to reopen is that the petitioner never informed him that she was potentially a battered spouse now it's just in or hired this this attorney to exceptional extremely unusual hardship very difficult standard to prove however if the petitioner were to show that she qualifies under the with what's known as the battered spouse provisions she would only need to show extreme hardship which is a much lower standard and not only that the heart of could actually be to herself and i have i have prepared many many cancellation of removal cases and i can say that any type of preparation of this type of claim would by necessity involve examination of the status of the of the petitioner spouse what type of relationship they have how often the children see them and so if prior counsel had in fact even conducted an interview to prepare the respond they would easily discovered that she qualified not only under b one but under section b two of cancellation of removal and application for relief yet the board ignored and did not consider what exactly the prior council had done or didn't do the board so i recall the board  extreme hardship standard which is much lower i would like to reserve the thirteen seconds i have left  morning charles went on for the united states council alluded earlier in his argument to the question about which board orders under review i think that's our reading of the record itself that that his petition for review would deal with the december  were didn't do because as far as i can tell the board never thought about whether counsel should have said ok like there are three possible grounds upon which one can see cancellation of removal and here they there's a burden on a client to come forward when the client is charging ineffective assistance of counsel and saying to took to say i gave him all the information that might possibly qualify me for cancellation of removal i wouldn't extend the burden that sorry i did wouldn't think so so so where does that argument get you well then let's let's move to whether or not there was substantial prejudice or the board did not find whether there was or wasn't and we have can whether the petitioner should have been more forthcoming now whether there was prejudice from counsel's failure to advise the client that there's a possible ground for cancellation of removal lying in the abuse that's correct attention to it at all it's not specifically addressed but let me ask this question and then they never and then they said even if we were to excuse the lateness then they went on with their analysis of what the what the approach is followed but before you get to that doesn't someone have to address whether the petition was was can can be considered lame i think it does your honor and that the june fourth of the june third two thousand and four order does not clarify that either i think at least issue of tolling would have to be considered now petitioner argues that the government didn't raise tolling i  think petitioners argument in their brief already today was that you didn't come from and didn't raise the tooling issue so maybe that's off the table but i'm wondering if it is something we  we would have to include in every man's order because the board said that the application was late the government did not discuss tolling in our brief because it was not discussed in petitioners brief but i think it's simplicity and and a requirement for every man in this case because they were in fact way beyond a one year type deadline for filing in fact sixteen months i believe so i think that would be an issue in this case that that should be examined did not file the application by the due date only explains that after she was ordered removed they discovered in the preparation of a motion to reopen that she wasn't eligible so the board is basing its decision on something that's not in the