sessions please the court my name is erin o'neill baker and i represent the plaintiff the petitioner careen i'm honored and privileged to be here before you today today to explain why the petitioner oscar grant is eligible for cancellation suppose who was subject to battery in extreme cruelty mr raina is a forty two year old father of four he was born in el salvador and has been in the united states since one nine hundred ninety four he's the father of four u s citizen children two of which are freshman in college this year he has been in removal proceedings for the past thirteen years and yesterday he was informed that he will be forced to leave the united states on november twenty seventh of this year he has been ordered to buy a plane ticket to depart the united states he would be leaving his family and his children and his third wife the mother of his two youngest children but today we focused on his marriage to his second wife and santana we are focused on the treatment mr raina suffered during his marriage to anna stan tana that her would like to point out that this court does have jurisdiction to hear this case because it determination of battery and extreme cruelty is a mixture of fact and law that is revote viewable by this court also the or its conclusion lacked rational justification that's one way we describe this questions of law unconstitutional claims because that's all we have jurisdiction over i'm having difficulty understanding how how we have jurisdiction here thank your honor i would like to point out and go directly to mr grant his testimony and the evidence that was presented in front of the immigration judge and you see here that his testimony does require a conclusion that is different than what the board and the immigration judge found and there were characterizations of his testimony and there were facts that were not considered by the board and the immigration judge if i may point your attention to the record in which mr mr rayney testified that he was  threatened with a knife he his wife met him at the front door with a knife and did not let him in she would physically kick him out of bed she also threatened his life and fantasized about cutting him into pieces the record at page one twenty six one twenty seven he says every night she used to say you know i want to cut you into pieces of that's that's his testimony right and one of the things that the immigration judge and suggested was that this was not adequately corroborated is that is that overlooking some important corroboration that they should have referred to the evidence of the ongoing pattern of violence and abuse was corroborated by his first wife's mother who is the grandmother of his two children and that is sandra roberts she states she testified at with the immigration judge she corroborated that miss anna santana her her behavior changed around the children and she specifically testified that she was acting bizarre that he locked him out of the house that he was demeaning to the petitioner and she recalls miss santana threatening mr arena with a frying pan and so are none of that but threatening with a frying pan is a very different thing than scolding him and it seems to me that a reasonable fact it's a perfect finder not up to me reasonable fact finder could have seen that as not corroborating testimony that he actually was burned by his his wife you have heard his testimony in this case and she's corroborating the event itself but he specifically points out that it did it did occur also well what  the mother in law from an ex wife and she was present she was she was raising the two children she had credibility with the court and that she was present during the entire relationship even though that was not she was that that it wasn't the entire marriage that there were incidents i mean the petitioner here is very specific that her behavior changes after he was detained by immigration that he she began acting bizarre and ratcheted up this abusive and extreme parole to toward him and it is miss roberts testimony that says that she doesn't remember the incident that she was afraid for the children that she that mr santana was acting bizarre so it doesn't have to be the entire scope of the marriage itself also it is the pattern of violence toward the individual and in this case  the immigration judge and the board came to a conclusion without justification and that gives this court jurisdiction to hear this matter please the court my name is matthew connelly and i represent the attorney general of the united states your honor this court does not have jurisdiction to review the agency's determination that mr ray was not subjected to battery or while the court has jurisdiction to review legal issues and constitutional claims the petitioner has not raised a colorable legal issue this court has held in the case of rezai ovi holder that as the court mentioned earlier there's only three instances when the question of battery or extreme cruelty can be reviewed and the petitioners brief does not raise colorable issues with regard to either an incorrect standard of law an error of law for the findings of fact or that the ultimate conclusion is without rational justification the petitioner's argument that the standard of law regarding corroboration and credibility does not apply in correct because that same standard is covered by a u s c twelve twenty nine a which covers all removed proceedings the petitioner has not specifically a dental fide evidence that has been overlooked or mischaracterized petitioner has raised arguments which in effect questioned the weight that the court or that the board attached to various pieces of evidence and i also question the ultimate conclusion but that's not the same as a conclusion rooted in an error of law and finally the court the petitioner has not explained the assertion that the board's conclusion is without rasta justification because the petitioner has not raised the there are two points of where the facts were mischaracterized by the immigration judge in the record page thirty nine the immigration judge erroneously stated that the relationship actual at all it completely erroneous fact also the immigration judge mis characterize the relationship in that he stated that relate that the judge stated that the relationship appears that the relationship did not work out he claims that she was mean towards him but again that is one side of a relationship and in this case there is much more that was testified in front of the immigration judge but in his statements under oath and the immigration judge and the board was presented with specific details of battery and extreme cruelty during that merits hearing there are specific instances where his testimony is regarding the intentionally trying to burn him in the shower and that is at page one twenty seven and one twenty eight that she threatened his life and to cut him into pieces and in page one twenty six and one twenty seven and she he was often met at the door with a knife to prevent him from entering the house and that she many times tried to he uses the word poke with a knife and that he was pulled out of bed on multiple occasions and for and his life was threatened so this testimony is goes beyond what is what is rationally what is rational to believe that this conclusion made by the board and immigration judge could not conclude that he did not suffer from battery and extreme cruelty thank you you thank