i represent mr mohamedi are to begin your honour's i would like to just state that the it's clear i think from the briefs that no one is contesting that the immigration judge  failed to conduct a proper analysis of whether or not to grant a continuance in this case the i j s decision simply wrote her a g decision as analogy i don't see that as any kind of analysis the government has argued that that is beside the point what we have to do is look at the ordered decisions and to determine whether they  analyzed the request for the continuance i would like to turn the court's attention to that argument i believe that it contains wholly in one paragraph in the board's decision that being the immigration judge that the respondent did not establish that i am additional continuance was warranted to await adjudication of the pizza petition filed on his behalf that sentence of course is a conclusion and not an analysis   at that point your honor the petition has not been approved and so he was unable to file an application for release and so that sentence does not really address demonstrated that the immigration judge's decision to deny the continuance caused him any prejudice your honor this is not an analysis this is simply a statement that the respondent had not yet had an approved correct that is absolutely correct your honor i don't believe either the judge or the board did that kind of an analysis as required under hashmi and as the nd circuit has stated in other decisions that if the board in a case with an approval petition where the board does not address the hashmi factors it has to at least explain why those hashmi factors are not relevant and they did not do that an application and supporting documentation to determine the primus facia that would you believe for judgment but here there was no request for that either by the i j i think is your argument is that accurate yes your honor we had  submitted it we had shown i believe to the court that the marriage occurred in two thousand and eleven so it was not a marriage that was entered into while the respondent was in proceedings and nothing was really been granted for the pending i'm very specifically and while it is true that the number or the length the party can do is that aren't dispositive a history of continuance of especially when they're based on pending island thirty is coupled with other relevant factors tend support a decision to move forward the government would also like to note that the boy does not have any separate duty of articulation and that absent compelling evidence to the contrary the court to assume that all of the evidence was taken into account and your other record evidence does reflect the both the idea and the board considered whether or not there are other factors are relevant including whether you have to post a motion to his detention the number of continuances and the fact that he had over your the te wanted our court to make a decision i wrote an opinion instead which asked d i m a to think about it and come up with something and they came up with the hashmi factors which are really you know perfectly sensible ones what troubles me is if this isn't a rule and the b s a because they're busy because they have too much to do doesn't live up to it in some case why doesn't the government simply send it back into it itself it seems to me that bringing a case where would be has nothing lived up to its own rules is a tremendous waste of time now that isn't your problem you do your job but i do think it might be worthwhile letting the government know that keeping up with their own rules is something that would be very helpful to us so that's my more a point than a question but am i wrong they didn't live up to the harshman factors they didn't look at position your honor is that they did indeed live up to the hashmi factor and that they did consider the relevant factors in this case and although they may have weighed more heavily on over others or although they may not have explicitly delineated all of the factors the remand based on new information and the government would also press that the only issue before this court is whether the agency abused its discretion when it upheld the violet or for the continuance on the facts in the record at the time and although the ivan thirty has since been approved and although petitioner has been provide documentation that the forty five has also been filed that was not before the board and so the factors that were before the board the agency did consider so the i think better a proper remedy would be for a motion to reopen and not for every man being and in this case would not be appropriate and would be contrary to the regulations that provide that the proper apnea was of the opening a proceedings i'm having a hard time understanding how we can conclude that or that has to be factors were considered in the like partition was pending at the time of the denial continuance so what would be the basis for us concluding that these primary considerations were considered by the beyond anyone there's no mention of them but i government would point out that the board did well consistently with that rationale when it said that it had the patient had not met his burden to prove eligibility for relief and in that it could be ago may have confused the issues there is a basis for remit and based on that motion but i believe that the court is absolutely correct that if the court finds that bash me factors were not followed  reman would be the appropriate remedy to resolve the case in chief apart from the issue of the motion that was filed secondly your honour's i would like to just conclude with the statement at the end of matter of l a b r which the attorney general issued just a month before judgment tahn t denied the continuance here whether the a states i therefore conclude that an immigration judge must assess whether good cause support the continuance to accommodate a collateral proceeding by considering primarily the likelihood that the collateral relief will be granted and will materially affect the outcome of the removal proceedings and any other relevant secondary factors and then cites hashmi at the end of that decision i believe that the court is correct that there is no indication that the i j a or the  board looks to the likelihood of whether or not the i won thirty would be granted and that is the baby and reason why we believe this matter needs to be remanded for further consideration