on the merits of their specialty partition application on march twenty eighth one thousand nine hundred eighty seven when it was originally scheduled and if not or if that hearing did not go forward did that delay prejudice i don't see either of them i don't see prospal of the hearing being discussed at all anywhere in the so that's why i asked the question was this issue a raise the prospal moment of the of the hearing trust they reviewed the decision of the immigration judge the immigration judge stated that petitioner the wife and child were a preacher made on the basis of three zero nine c five without any analysis of the factors that  might result in hardship to them and consider the merits of their claim for special deportation found immigrations judge immigration judge decision is thorough interact in that sense the immigration judge on the record in the first hearing on march where you can bring a lawyer and i'm like a table this was profuse decision i made a decision for the following reasons so we don't have any explanation from the lawyer as to why he did that maybe he was just being stupid but maybe there were good reason day the day i had to begin to review the immigration judge's decision which included the decision by an immigration judge to continue the case of hopefully clarify the record based upon all sorts of pending legislation and different things that really had nothing to do with whether the the time frame or the window of a noisy being filed had anything to do with the stop and one stage is it only dealt with or show caus notices to appear and which one actually fell within the rule and so there was no reason to the way that at that time to be a could of could certainly could have i don't think there's any doubt this is a very special it was  if they qualify and let the board rule on whether it may in fact affect mr gonzales and titian well they've already made a motion to reopen once right yes and they go back and make another motion to reopen well be changed would be that the immigration judge would not be able are he would not say you don't qualify because you don't have seven years he would still have to go on what he would have to do then to go on and consider the r to go with this choice i'm actually just in this situation i can't imagine what conceivable benefit could have been for petitioners by counsel agree to continue the hearing and is hell bent on continuing the case i can object and lose or i can be gracious and go along with the judge's stated desire and hope that will work to my client's benefit when we come back i mean that that wouldn't saying that it is not clear what was going through that counsel's mind at that point i'm not asking you to read minds what i'm saying is you want a lawyer you're standing there you have just read all the things i've told you circuit opinion was not familiar and i know that that's true that it isn't quite well known within the immigration court that i'm not sure which i'm not sure which is worse in that case if you it was so well known and he didn't know about it but even if the immigration judge had had they had objected he had sustained their objections he still may not hold in their favor and he still may not have decided the case on that day and then likely it would have been held over for u is not even properly before this court because it wasn't made before the board and that the board could have that's a much better argued and the board could have competently addressed this and that and the court has recognized that and several decisions with that whether the immigration judge's decision to continue was proper or not and something within if you want to defer submission on the case so that you can check with the client and give counsel opportunity to do whatever he wants to do how much time do you think would be necessary  testify and the court so that issue is properly before this court but petitioners failed to comply with lozada with regard to that and therefore their claims which fail on that ground for that for when and issue is clearly before the board or of the lower court and that issue is at least at the forefront of the would be recognized by that border panel it would be bizarre not to address that issue permit that issue to be heard by and certainly think that clearly was here this was some minor issue or question that was going on at the time it may not have been on the board's radar screen but as the government explained during their portion