MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
of the statute the court would have simply cited to people before this no that would be perhaps asking too much i mean i don't think we can determine anything because somebody did or didn't cite to a different case otherwise we'd be therefore the i nees design to implement a uniform federal policy which is independent of the vagaries of state law california law need to find fraud differently from arizona law or nevada law the court should use a definition of fraud which actual last of the agency no documents indicate the amount of loss in this particular case because under california law restitution can be used for a variety of different purposes and in this case we don't do not know from that record a conviction exactly what purpose it was used for not sure who's who so there are really only only two points that i need to raise in my argument and the rest i would really appreciate you directing me to any points that you have a concern the first is that the entire argument the entire focus of the petitioners claim is that there's a fraud element out there that somehow is tangled up with other things i want to point out to the court that the statute that we're talking about the section subsection of the immigration and nationality act defining that really is broader involves fraud or to see it for our purposes therefore it's not give it a felony the last point on that point is there is nothing to the point that there is no more president that defines this charm fraud as wasn't at all in this context this is what fraud means so in that context context the board doesn't have a precedent decision that tells you that it's definition applies to the aggravated felony decision but i don't think you need to get there in this case but discuss that with your greater detail if you choose the other thing i want to get into is and this this is a little bit out of my field because i don't get this as often as you all do this is a hideous case  restitution issue that's been raised because we're limited to review of pure issues of law and that's why we get it we get into the issue of whether or not you have to go to the court of appeals in the first place hideous is restricted determine whether there's a mark of evidence in hay vs and you're doing a de novo review of that the question is whether west attrition can provide evidence of the loss to the victim and the answer is of course it can and shove or it doesn't say anything to the unless you're not allowed to consider restitution whatsoever and that's simply not true in the alameda county district attorney's office special investigations unit report out of the welfare fraud division says the overpayment by
focusing narrowly on the three months that they all live together but it isn't the timeframe the court should look at as the time from when the child was born until the time he was incarcerated on aggravated criminal sexual abuse per perpetrated against his daughter and was incarcerated the time the motion to terminate parental rights was final and he goes on basically to fight all the elements of
granted if you have a position on stay after this or if you if you do not prevail and we come to an agreement should we issue an order to terminate the stay right where i don't believe that we would argue that you should not i think the even if it was an enter irreparable harm is not that the person may have to just wait in a foreign country for their decision it's that there may be sent back to the place where there is a a real fear of harm and persecution i believe that in that circumstance the balance would be and you're willing to go to the supreme court defend it i am if called upon to do so i'm glad that i live report the documentary evidence that was submitted indicates that there is an increasingly violent campaign against coptic christians in in in egypt now that the big three twenty four excuse me of the of the administrative record b m c international report noted that torture is as dramatically practiced by security forces there are hundreds of complaints and no prompts impartial investigations into is having lived here in the united states now for now at the point fifteen years having a thirteen year old son and an eight year old son born here who don't speak arabic who only speak english in their particular circumstances you no real have this credibility finding made in this case instead what the court did was found that they did not meet their requirements to show demonstrate that they qualified as refugees even given their testimony taken as true  necessary evidence to support their burden of proof and show that they are refugees within the meaning of the statute unquote that's a page one sixteen of the record so he made that finding that they failed to meet the definition of fear of a terrorist attack of being one of these people in the temple that is attacked by the terrorists were not sufficient to show that they were refugees within the meaning of the only meaning and that's again it once into the record he found that
done for him then have the people person like to address the defendant's contention that the armed robbery and attempted armed robbery charges were based on the same act because he committed a continuous and uninterrupted act of crowd control in holding for us jason and sara at gunpoint jason terry being the two passengers in hofmann's on the back of his car no witness testified that he helped the poorest and and the others at gunpoint at the same time deforest was not part of the crowd that defended control when he pointed his gun at the passengers that came out of the charger first the defendant got  friend or a third friend deforest rounding the corner of the apartment building in front of which the the car was parked the defendant left the area right near the charger and went over to deforest near the his gun at the floor space and sarah at the same time or that he was in the same place when he did brownlee testified that the defendant handled the crowd regarding the actions toward the passengers in the state further argue that the defendant was accountable for the armed robbery based on his acts of bringing his gun with him even though premeditation wasn't required getting out of the cobalt when around her husband or when or after l mean the senate here aided the armed robbery of kaufman by preventing whoever was there from interfering with that armed robbery i mean that you know no doubt about that transmitting child pornography over the internet and then also retaining a copy for himself was not the same act within the meaning of the compose rejoinder statute because his app of saving  stealing one container holding items belonging to local people that's the kind of single that can form the basis of multiple crimes and that's not what happened here  required to prove one crime person has the other crime and i think yarmulke that also goes to the question the additional act of the pat down here a year ago was no conception of the compulsory jointer issue or the terms where
the officer and asked in a raised on a voice who calls you he then came to a complete stop as i did there and did not make any motion when the operator after responded i can provide you that information mr henry still standing there responded that's bullshit and then began to complain about the fact that he knew it was his that's a neighborhood call the police while mr hemmer is standing there complaining and mr henry standing approximately eight hundred feet away from the officer at the police academy and he's within this circle of danger he can easily convert the hammer into either into a weapon by either throwing it or by spike his hand down the handle in a split second and so that's not a material fact it's also  handle where he can brandish it and use it more easily if he's holding it by the head he's got to move his hand down the handle or he's got to throw it at by saying that he's holding the hammer by the hair that's the facts most favorable to the plaintiff and that's you are can we say here that when a man who was angry in the record is uncontroverted on that who's got a hammer in his hand and we can all agree that a hammer is a potentially lethal weapon and when he's coming at the officer and he scares the officer enough that he does insurance company
lot of time in my life reading briefs and i read your group with great care and on page fifteen of your brief the last full paragraph you write as follows the quote  search training lesson plan close quote itself of the service specifically covers this issue where in the world do i get an asylum officer training manual and if i find  to the dignity of a regulation adopted by the secretary or you know if you've got some ninth circuit case law that says something about what you're discussing i'm very interested in that or i'm even more interested if the s supreme court has said something about what you're discussing you know but this stuff if i think you're wasting your client's time and money when you put this kind of stuff in the brief because that's my reaction to it and i agree with you on that that's about a three liner in your brief and it's that's  streamlining issue as well so we would have to follow our decision that streamlining is permissible so that takes care of that second issue that you for the second we've got to go ok then then if that's the case then i'd like to hear your argument with regard to whether or not we need to remain and because of the fact that as i understand it from the record there was never a ruling on on the claim for withholding i had to come to the united states to seek asylum because that wasn't the original purpose of his coming to the united states but upon learning the fact that his own pastor whom he had a close period for which he had learned about the dads and counting up his pastor i believe was about four or five months after him  thank you thank you then sent back not to my now so this is the policy of the administration now to just keep all these people till all this litigation is over with and we're wasting our time with this whole space process  undocumented aliens on their way home and yet here's a case where you have an undocumented alien but in the united states doesn't seek to stay and there's nothing to prohibit you from sending that alien back home and there's in in terms of whether or not somebody is removable you have to talk and it's often presented in terms of whether or not they can remain in country wise what do you why do you bring this petition to doesn't if the premises affected as credibility because of that i would again respectfully disagree i think if somebody welcomed another point that should have made earlier was that he was actually asked on direct find out the birthday
prior to that i was a three point i have a three point two g p a over that and at the university which we quiet that if there's a long absence i am able to return i have  the university is position is that being that i was found guilty and a distant parry herrmann which i did at which i meant i did not intend own for my own persons reasons that evidence which they use which difference than the ones that was in the criminal case which was which i was found not guilty of difference is the reason why i denied ten basically what the university have  done was they took evidence and they fabricated it witnesses and to stop me from the tent and i was and that was the only reason why the other reasons which they furnished sa attempts to effectively try to relive a gate and challenge and bring claims about events that are again happened thirteen years ago and therefore are clearly time barred under any applicable statute of limitations the decision in which she was expelled for having engaged in theft found that said that he could reapply after three years but that it was entirely within the discretion of the dean whether or not he was going to be readmitted he did reapply not after three years but after ten the deed considered his application and did not accept him for readmission he as to as to his federal claims relating to that decision to deny him readmission he has failed to sufficiently plead anything that would mean a minimal plausible inference of discrimination and for all those reasons the court below  correct decision and we request that this record court affirmed that decision without i'll just ask if there are any any questions from the court you grew the structure limitations of three years that's right and again just remind me or just recited again how how long was it after admission was that this case was the time barred argument isn't as to his discrimination claims as to the denial  readmission it's just as to i mean i think it's just what happened in two thousand and seven right which is when he was expelled for engaging in theft so that's i think it was ten years ten years after that event that he filed this action
question i don't understand why there why we should focus on due process it seems like a much simpler case to handle in terms of whether it's an abuse of discretion and also if there's a due process violation a for she or he there is an abuse of discretion but you can establish an abuse of discretion without it rising to the level of a violation of due process so i don't actually understand why we should enter the united states whether it was his desire to enter the united states i think it's the way one of our cases puts it and that the evidence of this mother in is i think was his brother's your brother and sister all had a tendency to support the inference that he did not intend or desire to enter the united states that's the test of relevance i don't get it i want to sponsor a race to your first point about the transportation the shipping lanes made by the family doesn't mean that yeah are impervious to review and i must say i must say also when you've got a judge who looks like they're going your way and the reveal is abuse of discretion i think it unseemly for the government to push to get evidence rulings that seem on their face to be likely to be wrong hoping that the standard review will correct moronis evidence against my will basically that's a perfectly good defense if it's believed juries tend not to believe a defendant's fair story has to be corroborated comes in with all this corroboration the whole issue in the case is whether his story about his mental state is true or false the corroboration is the whole case does the jury believe and is it persuaded by the corroboration it doesn't come in inexcusable terrible prosecution  means it means that that i can think i would have ruled differently but i still have to affirm the ruling if it's within the range of discretion that reasonable district judge would have but if i  strong whether overwhelming or just very strong and the defendant wants to put in some evidence that might help him that seems relevant and the jury may well disbelieve loaded than otherwise you're going
was i wasn't even given a set trial help so i have a couple of problems one is that she never has shown earth he has never shown what it is that he could have accomplished if he'd been given a continu another is there's never really been a showing at what happened why the lawyer wasn't there and the third is it looks as though the immigration judge as a practical matter invited a motion to reopen and that the motion to reopen that not offer him what he asked for w the decision that ultimately came down said he applied on the basis that he was in unmarried son he wasn't as he concedes he was married right at he requested a relief in the form of a waiver but there's no documentation whatsoever to support the application for a waiver and that's why he lost now the way that it got closed down was in the earlier oral decision the judge says when the lawyer doesn't show up i would set this to another date given me no confidence whatsoever that this application has been prepared for hearing on the merits today and i have no good cause to continue the case for that reason but then the critical words the judge has at line twenty five but it's not over as i indicated to you have two options now you can file a motion for me to either reconsider to reopen this case away it looks like the judge is falling all over himself to grant relief and the other option he gives them is appeal so that's your marching orders thirty days give me a reason why the lawyer wasn't here and give me evidence showing why the motion wasn't supplemented and the motion to reopen come to new lawyer timely motion to reopen and it gives neither it doesn't explain why the attorney wasn't there and it doesn't offer evidence showing why the application wasn't supplemented with information to support it and it also includes no information to support it and to this day we still don't have documentation to support it so all we know is the guy wanted a waiver he wasn't prepared lozada was never complied with we never got a chance to hear from a lawyer for all i know the number only went into a lawyer and local lawyer said i'll show up if you pay me three hundred dollars to me never pay the three hundred dollars and you never is not a violation of the liberty interest the right to
out in this letter so there are very important things that but i'd like to state that one of the issues one of the big issues here is the commissioner saying that it in determining whether there's substantial evidence the commissioner is stating that now we need to show materiality even the materiality presumably it was found by the appeals situation the commissioner had just conceded in that case as they do here that the reason you include what may consider the new evidence looking at the new evidence the ninth circuit in ramirez concluded that that material was already part of the record the appeals council had already considered it and was now and had made their final duty to investigate the facts and to look at both sides of the case for and against the claimant and excuse me for the o j had that responsibility and i there are some also some negatives i don't have we don't have the commissioner represented getting a detailed explanation of what the commissioner's objection to the medical evidence is the first time that the claima after an l j and merely stated that the court is to review all the evidence and the decision of the l j and the appeals council but it's set out no new standards on what are the requirements  pretty taken aback by the fact that not only does the appeals council not address the additional treating physicians report but that the a l j also did not address the treating physicians reports that were already in the record and is not required to go find evidence or make the plaintiff's case for him he only has to ensure that the evidence is complete and in this case he had all the records of dr mccullough and twenty  changes and there was even although there was an agency doctors did address and give information regarding his one notation prior to surgery the more recent information the only doctor had to give any comment is dr mccullough and there is simply no updating by the agency of this condition after the surgery and dr mcauliffe the only opinion should be
very critical job in town since you oh so do double duty as the traffic impact group will be an occasional double meeting so i just wanted to kind of acknowledge what you doing and say my personal appreciation for what you g
call his wife affair with someone and my come to some decision that it was not a crime involving moral turpitude to my understanding and looking at the record he did not even going to the analysis of it that's what we have if that had been determined then somehow you might be able to use race to the cause of that was the immigration judge found that they did satisfy and i didn't see anything in the petition i agree of arguing that the third song didn't satisfy the definition didn't wasn't a crime involving all turpitude which is why presumably we didn't address that that i think is correct if i i would point out that in this case the other aspect of this case is that that's convection and so i would argue that even putting aside the two thousand sexual assault conviction
know we have to keep we believe good things come from dirt nude flowers nutrients but the dirt i'd like your school part will grow something better my community this sunny her heart was our project and from beginning to end this is our story my name's will and i'm not in the house my house is right around the street from the way through school park whenever i have friends over who are stuck inside because there are no good games to play or sports serials the entire areas full of weeds part doesn't like my dog the only organized play area is this random slab of concrete my mom said that in the eighty's they had this game called five square or it was four square who knows nobody building a brand new baseball diamond with a new soccer field with all new grass and i'm so excited i heard i can bring skips with me to the park now because she'll be allowed in we can take our french game to a whole new level for sure syria for the times is getting completely wiped out and i couldn't be more upbeat because on something really cool is going to go there and i'm so excited and the purpose can be just so much more open interests on a summer day they can split up and use the playground the garden and sit by the pond but in the winter they will have to drive across town anymore thank you mark safely over to the leap year school park and use the snow covered in b open spaces with rocks and trees can put everyone's imagination to work the trees can form new kingdoms and the rocks come to come home to new games of king green of the mountain even parents can enjoy the party gather as gross as we said we believe good things come from dirt off things we presented are components that make up the unification holland speaks and their lead from environment parks creating this community feel is extremely important because when all else fails they're still behind you think  i'm a lot of old parks is the surrounding neighborhood and you you referenced it but i am not quite sure it was understood who the demographics are that might drive activities in the  going on the back of my car and there on the window because that's a great way to do it and i happen to live in proximity to this thing and i think you know i'd fight to the death for the saying t tricky question i had was your experience with the city government i didn't care much about integration maybe what you learned from working with city departments and what would be their involvement  people would not be as happy with the dog park right there but if dogs are still allowed then it's kind of like a mix so we were heading in that direction and the city was really you know there's a lot of dog people
relatively short period of time meeting at a gas station i could understand the suspicion by without more i would suggest it's not enough because somebody could be meeting for all sorts of reasons that could be car starts to show up a year later with the with the scars making these return trips so that you have is information that sort of is consistent throughout and not in any way inconsistent with the story that was originally told i think that satisfies the requirement of