assuming that made its way to the court i'm told i'm sorry i've made a good twenty eight j submission yesterday i haven't seen it if the court would like i could provide copies we'll see it the argument i am i ok i have a question for you yes or no i read the statutes that you cited and i understand your theory  one o three point thirty one city and i have two questions about the second sentence of that subsection my first question is that does the immigration judge have discretion to say what i want to file this a complete application and that would include the documents and if you don't file all the documents i'm going to treat the application is incomplete no i would say not try not to thirty for the immigration judge comes from two sources and tell us being a will case over thirty years old spells at out first of all it comes from any statutory creation by congress second source would be the regulations and acted under the general delegation by congress to the attorney general we understand the general theory i want to get more under twelve twelve point three the application is defined as a form i one ninety one that is the application i stated so i j has no discretion because something else defines the application eight and in that section originally the i'm one ninety one and still could be filed with the district director which is now part part of the partment homeland security well with the immigration judge were both savvy ask you something else that you're correct on this theory and that the i j a was mistaken in striking the application because the document was not filed  what is the remedy for it is there anything either in a controlling case or non controlling case or some regulation that tells what the grammy is after for the document and not being filed other than waiver of the opportunity to file the document well i'm assuming you're asking about what the sanctions would be right are there are appropriate sanctions of course there are the appropriate sanction would be are controlled by the regulation the statute and the instructions for filing and in that point time after since your were still using the old operating structures and there are instructions at the bottom of the form which doesn't reference documents at any rate the sanction if you fail to file a document then the judge at the time of the hearing on hearing the hearing on the on the evidence taking the testimony of the alien it's not corroborated and finds may can make an adverse credibility finding sanction has to be did you need is the burden of proof if he didn't what's missing and there's the sanction sanction is deportation if you're referring to the b i e manual were for two and a brief for the local operating procedures at that time under regulation they'd have their local operating procedures most recent years clearly don't say anything whatsoever about supplementing an application of that fouled up to that point yes by filing i why ninety one under the regulation anything requiring anything more than nat is all true virus that's beyond the scope or regulation the judge doesn't have the authority to make a new form of the application using their own forms that she's made up  application is complete under the definition of an application in the brig but it's not for me i want to know some additional things and they're not outlandish things but case particular case i give you a hypothetical case and you think he can do that and show me the authority for him being able to do that you're out of the authority is a practical application of the regulations and stat  won't find the specific language in the hypothetical that your honor just gave me it is not there but the government suggests that the regulation and statute together with the matter of  the president the work relied upon that it is a reasonable application of i'm having trouble with that let me explain why it looks to me as though in the absence of some thing he can do that the i g cannot do what i described in my hypothetical case what he can do is say in your case i really need to see this evidence and i'm going to give you more time to submit the evidence and here are the documents i want and then that date comes and goes and no documents come in it looks to me is that what he can do about it and all we can do about it is under  subsection see because of the war the right to file the documents weigh in if the document is critical to the ileum winning this case tough luck so i would suggest that reading the phrase and isolation of of the regulatory scheme itself i don't want to read it in isolation and out of context so you show me the other words that give it the sense that you want to have that these documents that go to the heart of the discretionary decision for to you really must be submitted so that the now i read that first sentence just as giving the i j a the power to grant continuance of some extensions of time but it's real the court would be unworkable if the immigration judge or any judge frankly required a one hundred eighty litigant to provide certain documents so that the issues were narrow for the court for the also the benefit of the opposing party said i need more time still sometimes in other kinds of litigation there is something that the judge would like to see the jurors would like to see it and you don't want to see it because it's going to cause a lot of confusion in the case and lead them to what you think it's an erroneous for we've all been in that situation this trial lawyers and so what you do is you don't give it to him you don't ask the question and you let them just go with what they've got the instructions on what has  somebody else in immigration court can't do the same thing well i think it was more of a it's more of practicality to have an applican walk in and say well your honor i know we didn't we had eighteen months to you know supply documents that you asked for we didn't have jack we didn't ask for more time i'm out with my you know ten witnesses and would like to put i'm thinking applicant the wife is formally the applicant i guess but the real applicant goes back to his wife and says i jus want to see this letter well she says she really disapproves of his girlfriend and she doesn't care if he does go back to mexico and she's not going to give him a letter that wasn't this case this is a case where they just ignored the order and expected to still go forward and and light of the immigration docket which i'm sure aware of to have to not be  this themed wave language well i told you i needed a letter from your wife and you don't have a letter from your wife you have waived the opportunity to give me a letter from your wife and without that you haven't shown hardship and you don't have another chance put in you lose states or could be created by the petitioner himself remind me what they were who needed something that one of those check marks you needed something from his wife in mexico about how we needed to continue to earn money in the united states to send back or what one spending out of school for the united states that might have been hard  is there in the procedure before the immigration good anything similar to what we might have under the federal rules and civil procedure where you could say your honor i don't think that that's relevant document and we object on that basis war this is a very sensitive matter and i would be glad to show it to the court in camera or anything it is that is the practice   and i just think i'm going to ignore it as contracted to somebody say it you know i don't think that's proper or i have an objection and i'm i'm this is just a question of a procedure if you know i don't know the specific plainly yester contrary to the regulation and that it's a again a practical application of those regulations so that decisions can be made by an informed court or girlfriend is not a qualifying relative right that's correct and then again we do have the sanction rises clearly under the under the hypothetical posed here and clearly under the statute if he didn't he wouldn't be here today if the immigration judge simply said all right well have your hearing i don't believe to me it seems perfectly obvious that if this had gotten past the various procedural barriers and i think maybe it did or should have been deem too that the i j a would have said what i just said probably in somewhat more delicate terms but i would hope not much and you don't have a cake if you have no hardship to family in america because your wife is in mexico your girlfriend is not a qualifying relative and you have various criminal strikes against you and nothing much for you you've been an illegal alien for a long time and i think that would have been the case and you would have lost is there any way we can just cut to the chase on this no i think that's what she should have done that's what the regular oratory speaking requires of the judge that's what the statute requires sure she's got to hear the testimony she doesn't she doesn't feel he met his burden she has the discretion under this particular form of really to deny and throw it out so there's but he didn't she did not she didn't go where she had to go under thank you