please the court that i will come sought by the government in this case in dangerous victims of domestic violence who are in removal proceedings by foreclosing access to the remedy that congress created for them the the positions taken by the government assisted the mess to computers and ensuring the swift deportation of cooperating victims regardless of their eligibility for legal status today i will address three of the issues presented in this case st i will address the board's abuse of discretion and refusing to remand this case to the immigration judge for consideration of a continu in this case i'm just bringing to the court's attention that ice has entered into an agreement for ninety days to not oppose any continuances for people with pending you shifted policy under the prior administration and now it appears to be once again reviewing its policy towards victims of domestic violence and other qualifying crimes in protecting them once again under the laws and the regulation and it would suggest that even though the order entered was not in your case what is your argument for why it should apply here it's a nationwide stack so it does actually apply in this case if my client were still in removal proceedings or if she were to file a stay of removal so it implies nationwide to anyone in any immigration court the procedural posture she was before we had to appeal her asylum denial to the court so if this case were before the immigration court today and i were to request the continuance ice could not oppose that continuance but but she could still get if you sought a stay of her room of her order of her mobile now she could still get under this assuming that this had the district court entered ok so what effect does that have on art case phones to me like regardless of what we decide you can still get a stay for your client pursuant to this agreement closure to be used at the earliest point of adjudication for example in this case it would have avoided had had a continuance or ministry of closure and granted in this case it would have avoided a hearing on the merits so the hawse st of all so there is nothing that i can totally rely on my client will be safe and will be able to remain in the country if some other decision is made after that ninety day pa if you get i'm sorry it's a ninety day stay or you're saying if she applies in the next ninety days she gets a stay pending the resolution of her nurse to say i apologize your honor  this joint motion that was going to buy the the connecticut district court on friday is a stay i said being able to oppose continuances and a stay of ice being able to could granted they could deny it they could just hold on to it but it's not necessarily a guarantee that she will not be removed from the country on june th i think ok thank you and  furthermore it is just so important in the interests of a fission see for a continuance to still be granted at this early stage in removal to avoid the agency from having to go through all of these unnecessary for hearings unnecessary processing of these appeals when it could have just temporarily put the case on the shelf and proceeded to make decisions and all of the other cases on its overburdened docket  vacate the order that was already entered and if there is no error in that order i don't i don't understand like how do we vacate the order that was entered if there's no error in the order so that her was in the board of what your argument for the absolutely so what saves matter a b as far as the court in gracie bar is concerned is that word that it says generally these cases will not be successful and only because it use that word generally didn't say that it's not completely foreclose a whole class of people who might be requesting relief so i would say that it's very instructive to look at the discussions  n gracie bar about domestic violence claims and circularity in particular which are in accord with this court's holding and one on tonio v bar which reinforces the requirement that specific your social group that you propose different than the one rejected in a b is there something about it seems to me you have it made any argument or something about honduras that's different there's something about the particula i just haven't heard that in your briefing absolutely so in this case in particular the the judge determined that she didn't have a reasonable fear because back in tw circumstances case where my clients claim became right based on the abuse that occurred here and the threats that he made specifically to her are here that as soon as she was the court of the hunter as you would find through his son that he was eager for the order for attention to to expire or for her to be deported so that he could continue stalking and terrorizing her  and the fact that he was using their son shows that she has that immutable connection there's a nothing she can do about getting rid of their the fact that they have a child in common together so even though so in this case based on the fact that she has no other family on her that can help her cure for this family that can help her care for her son she has no economic opportunities and so for her specific understand how those are the circumstances of her case but i'm not sure how that makes her social group different than the social group or an a p so it is similar i will admit it is very similar in the articulation a change in the law will also claiming that now it forecloses an entire class of people whose particular social groups have previously been recognised and so i think that matter of the b itself should be abrogated for attorney general overstepped his bounds and in issuing the decision so and you're saying it now at oral argument but i didn't see it presented in your papers well your honor i did explain that even under a matter of a b whichever way you cut it my client's claim still succeeds and it should be equalized both under want to antonio and matter of a r c g which is still in the six circuit according to wan whole discussion in that case on domestic violence claims and circularity in particular is very instructive in this before before we live i think there's some confusion press on my part perhaps has simply failed to meet her burden to show eligibility for either asylum withholding of remove all a continuance or it ministry of closure the government's content that this court's decision hernandez serrano completely for closes in antonio that refers to the district court decision and in grace the language that concerned this court in that particular footnote was in fact overruled by the d c circuit and is really no longer a good law of the d c circuit held that the attorney general in matter eighty did not foreclose domestic violence claims and that each claim has to be evaluated on its own merits according to the evidence that the applicant presents and that's exactly what the board did here the board looked at the evidence that petitioners presented and found that they failed to show that hunder and women unable to leave the relationship did not meet the circularity requirement and they didn't show that it was socially distinct in hunger in society nor that it was sufficiently particular and you know as the government points out it's brief now petitioners did not make any true argument in their opening brief regarding any of those requirements and therefore really waived the opportunity to do so here here's what gets me some concerned things like we've got that mix here where the government really did not do an intense if you will the government was a pretty quick response and then we've got the question of what has been presented before us which was not elaborately defined aither but the concern that i have was that in looking at what the government's decisions were it really was very much kind of one instance issue taking away the breaking the phone and really does not discuss the mental abuse the all of that being considered in the aggregate to determine if her group is legally cognizable or whether she showed a reasonable possibility that she will in fact be harmed because those are two separate requirements that are each dispositive of her claim so i think if it's a good question she should address both because i'm thinking of it in terms of this physical or mental abuse and use a concept just a one i don't issue but the whole course of conduct charge so the st argument the government would make is that you know to sort of take a step back to step warren to take a look at argument that she presented to the board and it is her affirmative burden to you make the showings to show that everything that congress set forth to be eligible for u b s is in fact present in her case that she did suffer the substantial physical mental required to show the poor in order to show this crime if they show eligibility and showing the nature of the injury inflicted severity of the perpetrators conduct the severity of the harm suffered the duration of the infliction of harm the extent to where there is permanent or serious injury to him or her to their parents to their health and mental soundness and that one sentence that she presented to the board discuss any of that so really she didn't give the porridge anything to work with and it's not the board's duty to take such a short sentence that doesn't really provide any support and go back and try to figure out what the argument would be that would be the st point that i would make and the nd point i would be just to sort of point out for the court is she could have requested a continuance before the immigration judge no nothing changed in regards to her pursuing the u b s between when she was in removal proceedings befor immigration judge and when she appealed to the board and you know she asked for administrative closure before the immigration judge which was denied and once her case was completed she appealed to the board and she only asked for a motion to sort of hammer the senate the board was correct but she didn't show this promise a shell debility even taking into account now everything that she that she everything that she says didn't fact occur to her you know when we look at the information that we have in you know the government understands that this record of course is based on or this case is of course based on the entirety of the certified administrative record but you know in dealing with an issue like a u b s and a collateral form of relief that situated catered by another agency in this case of course u s c i s it makes sense to look at what u s c i s is going to have and there's no evidence that it's it has the entirety of the merits hearing what it appears it has i status certification which is on page four hundred and thirteen dollars of the weak case and for thirty five dollars the consolidated case and in response to the question asked provided description of any known or documented injury to the victim all that's written is no signs of injury reported and then we look at the sheriff's report which is presumably also submitted with the u b s the petition and it says that hector cold her hold ms caray escoto by the hair that hector was angry causing problems that she feared for her well being and that she did not have any signs of injury and then her personal declaration says that hector was violent mistreated her physically and he threatened to kill her to take her children but there is no evidence in any of do the threats any any mental injury and that it's a really hard argument to my when your spouse has threatened to kill you as soon as he gets the st change and yet not impacted by it over time i'm swell and i understand you know the government would go back to the st argument that that is a fact that's her burden to present to the board and that one line that she submitted a crime efficient provable u v s of petition without making that argument  when that will factual analysis did not exist in the opinion is that not the problem the board should never have put in that initial phrase i mean that's the government can contend that that is not something that was incorrect but when you look at the rest of that paragraph the board did engage in its own analysis now again it never should have said it agreed with the immigration judge that she didn't show quick cause because of course can't contest that she never asked for a continuance before the immigration judge so that simply isn't true but when you look at the nd phrase of that particular sentence and when you look at the last sentence in that same paragraph both of them say  burden to meet again it's not the burden for the board to try to figure out what to what she's trying to refer to to support that she didn't refer to any evidence that was before the immigration judge she didn't even cite say when i say this i'm referring to x y and z she didn't submit any of that with her motion to the board that's all she submitted was that one line and that one line is you know it doesn't meet the burden that she is in fact required to me see her petition was filed with the for mt service center and you can look on the web site and it gives them information about visa petitions that were filed at a certain time and the time that it refers to regardless she can see could be removed and still be eligible or is that or is it out also i guess you can clarify to the extent you know what's going on in homeland security with this new  is it if you file until between now and june th we won't remove you until your u b s the application is the site that now it's my understanding that you know as i pointed out in my response it's the government's position that because that particular district court case the center of it is challenging the way ice has been adjudicated stays of removal that individuals who have a pending new visa have asked for and that's not an that individual i'm sorry let me just back up for a minute you mean you understand that that is true across the board or its own true with respect to people who are raising the claim that was also an issue before the district of connecticut that's a good question to be honest i i'm not totally sure but you know i mean it was just today but in reading you know the only thing in the documents that i have been reading there is an order by the judge that's actually downloadable it's just a text order saying that i can't remember to male or female that he or she is going to grant what the parties asked for in the joint status report and in the joint status report it makes clear that read that on st glance is that because petitioners are not a client of and you know are no are and are not involved in the case at all because they aren't seeking a stay of removal on st glance i might answer would be that i don't think it applies to them but you know i'll be honest i am not sure i haven't talked to the council has the handling it so i i don't know how they have been interpreting it or how ice has been interpreting it but that would be my sort of st glance answer thank you  and is the no any time period the opportunity for the agency to mike a new determination going forward of how these issues are handled it's my understanding that the ninety day is to give ice a chance to determine if it's going to threshold of terminations and for both the continuance as well as for administrative closure is that crime a facial determination so even though at the time the case was before the immigration judge when there were required and the department of homeland security had the opportunity to present arguments that it did not believe that my client made a crime a fusion case and it did not do that instead it said that she could pursue her you've brought furthermore the department of homeland security has a system through which it can request a prime aphasia determination directly from vermont service center and it did not request that in this case had it wished to contest prime aphasia eligibility it certainly could have done that the immigration judge did not and engage in any kind of crime of patient malices neither did the board even though it's sad that it found my client to be not primacy eligible it just stated that as a legit yes but where where did you present that to them in other words you're asking the b i a to analyze factors when all your client said to them is i have presented a prima freshly eligible case which is a conclusion if your client didn't say here are the factors here's how i meet back to one here's how in effect you two here's how i mean factor three so to ask the agency to say more than you didn't support your motion i don't know what we want them to do your honor there are very clear written arguments on this before the immigration court and that record is the for the board but it's not our interest to a continuance you're saying there it was addressed to a different question it was the privatization eligibility for release and at the time because there were these two ways that one could request supported all of the arguments concerning eligibility for relief the impact that relief would have on the conclusion of the proceedings as well as her diligence under matter of l a b r and decision in due course