be excused the agency has the inherent discretion to depart from the letter of the rules and that that discretion includes the inherent power to disregard the deadlines imposed by local rules the gadgety the board of immigration appeals stated that if an application is not filed within the time set by the immigration judge the opportunity shall be given when asked and did not cite at all the court's repeated emphasis that the agency is empowered to know and shouldn't be consider whether departures from the deadline are warranted or there is good cause and likely prejudice that  clearly the case here in the good cause for a continuance and even an extension of the filing deadline is as manifest as it is compelling to good cause in this case rests on the simple and undisputed fact that my client were in on the day that his asylum application was due to his attorney in whom whom he had been relying upon to file his application was permitted to withdraw so there's a little wrinkle in the record here the government and my client counsel represented that the initial counsel filed his motion to withdraw on the day of the deadline which was august th two thousand and eighteen record cannot be faulted for not acting on his own behalf when he lacks reason to know that his attorneys of record are non fact representing him and that's what's occurred here not as to belabor the obvious it was impossible as a practical matter for my has abandoned his application for not filing the immigration judge stated that my client failed to even ask for an extension of time justifying why the application was not filed or why additional time would be needed but of error the board of immigration appeals further affirming immigration judges denials my client's subsequent counsel who is retained after this filing deadline his motion for a in this case are playing the board of immigration appeals flatly fail to recognize control in nd circuit law it did not consider at all the question of whether there was good cause or departure from the filing deadline even an extension of the deadline that does not require a finding that my client's st counsel under ineffective assistance merely that my client was reasonable in relying on his counsel to represent him up until  and so we think that the government's argument on this point are unavailing so with that i have a sense looking for a bit of time i'll welcome any questions from the court thank you thank you very much judge later what's the explanation for that seems to be a different situation than as soon as he comes on he recognizes what happened and ask for an extension which might be more i think your honor that's answered by the fact that  event what the government argued in its motion for a finding of abandonment was that that that my client had already abandoned his application at the at the time he missed the found deadline so anything that occurred after if there were assuming our new endo and i don't think the record supports even if it were such communication even had the motion to withdraw and filed earlier i think the key question here is is  when my client learned that the war was permitted to withdraw because she repeated the black letter principle is that until such time as you are committed to withdraw you've got to continue to represent the concept interests so i think it's eminently reasonable it was raised before the agency and no concern there seems to be a mismatch and i think frankly you're proving the argument and it and it would your client would have been well served it was raised below but withdrawal as you contend at least you know when it was too late to do anything but i thought that the argument presented to the agency was that your client was not aware of the deadline and then the agency went back and said no no the client was there the day we announced that so can you just tell me if i'm wrong and there's not a mismatch so your honor i so your honor i don't think there's a mismatch just point why i think that's the case i think your honor is correct that before the immigration judge that was the focus of the the argument but in the brief to the board of immigration appeals if you sessions which i think in turn references debbie and and where in that case i think there was a funny that there was no good cause for a delay and i think counsel squarely put the issues that we're discussing in front of the withdraw the same day as the application was due and so i think that's a that's a reference by the way your honour's to that point to discuss earlier where there's a wrinkle in the record in both the government and in the previous council appear to have the understanding that the motion to withdraw was filed on the th but the you know of course the issue was when my client learned of the withdrawal being granted and so i i don't think that link will at all takes away from the fact that this issue of when you know my my condolences to the court on the passing of judge winter judge winter was you know made incredible and considerable contributions to the law both as a professor and there is an antitrust incorporations and as a member of this court i had the pleasure of meeting him once and found him to be brilliant standard and the wide latitude that's afforded immigration judges in calendar management decisions the board of immigration appeals did not abuse its discretion when dismissing petitioners appeal of the immigration judge just decision to deny a continuance and deem relief  abandoned here the board's decision responded to the arguments that were placed before it and the record that was placed before it and this court has long recognized that the board and the i don't need to mention every argument or every piece of evidence to have considered it read to the court presumes that an i j or the board has taken into account all the evidence before him or her unless the record compelling suggest otherwise the board did mention petitioners lack of good cause in its ruling i realize the ruling you know is a single page with the signing on to the next page a or three but the board in that gets th paragraph down the bottom paragraph they are three says that the immigration judge was well within its authority to rule immediately that the respondents really felt location was abandoned when it wasn't timely filed and counsel didn't show good cause for continuance to allow him to respond now my friend on the other side has suggested that the board it's keeping errors upon errors by saying that it was a continuance to respond to that motion but if you look at the pages he just cited in response to a at the end of the st paragraph says respondent was not given time to respond to the h s as motion instead the motion was granted the very next day and so he framed in terms of you shouldn't have granted the motion to deem the release abandoned without allowing a respo if you look at the st page of his brief on appeal he says the same thing the i j also erred by granting d h s s motion to in respondents request for a legal band and before providing responder an opportunity to respond and then in the argument section when he's got may have used the term continuance there when the st argument was about continuance but it's talking about his his argument here that you shouldn't have deemed the relief abandoned without letting him respond to the government's motion and as to good cause in that same paragraph  me cited matter of a b r which is a decision that sets out the factors for good causes so that's a quick response to a point that petitioner made i'd also like to make a quick response to a statement that signed that he had hand delivered the motion to withdraw on september th to put the petitioner and the government now we only have the copy that was handled ever to the government stamped as having been received that day but you did cross out the th so i think you must have for the agency not to have considered the opportunity to grant an extension here the i j clearly considered whether or not you could grant an extension because he discussed good cause in the october rd hearing when he was asked to reconsider i believe that  are one or two citing some cases and the beyond a pointed out that it's a footnote decision that the respond to minute and actual evidence to show that he was unaware of the august th deadline or some of the other rationales he was providing for why there was good cause and i think as an overarching point again against the backdrop that the i g has broad discretion to manage its docket but the the i as applying abuse of discretion to the i j a and that this court's applying abuse of discretion review the board's footnote is helpful because in point to matter was auto it provided an opportunity for us to see how one would get that evidence before the court and why that was auto mechanism an effective if petitioner believes that his counsel was going to file the application on the th and he didn't know then or the counsel told him he was going to file the application on august th that might be you know it might be malpractise or significant professional responsibility error by the st counsel and that's the sort of thing that would be ineffective assistance and might excuse the failure to file on time and was auto provides a mechanism for doing that and petitioner could have at the time he sought review from the board instead sought from the i j a motion to reopen providing the evidence required by  law as auto and we laid that out no footnote in our brief i think on page eighteen sort of with some both points about what was auto requires you need an affidavit so that it's evidence that describes what the agreement was what counsel what you know and their petition or could have provided the evidence regarding what he believed was going to happen on august th or why he didn't know there was a deadline august th and then you give counsel a chance to respond so that you can determine whether or not petitioner you know is accurate or whether counsel has additional evidence for why he wasn't ineffective and so i think again i would just reiterate that those oughta procedures were available to develop the record but here the board was looking as with the i j a at a record that didn't have a lot of evidence and on the evidence before it we don't from putting evidence in and some of that evidence would have what may have been effective here we have to start with that st point that you know in the circumstances provided was an error for the i j a not under the authority and i think again i g reconsider the ruling to find management the i j a made clear like here's some cases about good cause and when we would extend and pressure pointed to one of those cases that were cited at page a or fourteen in his brief to failing to recognize that he had the authority or the discretion to deviate from the rules ok and as for the board if i could just repeat if i could take a nd to the board as i mentioned cited matter of l a b r which again  to respond to the government's motion and indeed a question of not having time to respond to the motion was simply a reference to the fact that although the local rules call for you no time to respond to two motions the immigration judge granted the motion the next day without hearing at all from my client's counsel so that's flatly wrong so it's true that the argument for the immigration judge focused on a lack of understanding by my client about the deadline but the judge himself referenced the motion to withdraw to resign and the moon has separately indicated understanding that lawyers who are moved to withdraw are required to represent their alternative in fault in my client for not providing an explanation for why he missed the deadline or ask for an extension of time which of course overlooks the circumstances in this case we think it's