good morning  judge failed to properly analyze that receiving medicaid does not disqualify you from seeking justin status and is actually the type of benefit which does that immigration law judge indicated that he would be considering whether he was a public charge this case was continued how many times was it ten times a possible over a period of years and years and years all kinds of continuances all this was available the requirement for affidavits of support all of that was made very clear and had all the lawyers and so on was previously a petition review for review files after the first day i decision but it was dismissed by our court for want of prosecution and so we're limited it appears to the motion to reopen the issues that we may properly address and in particular with regard to the four hundred forty quarter forty quarters there we go that sounds to me like a pretty straightforward factual question right how do how does that come before us now so that we can decide  new evidence tells us we should have a different result but one of the legal issues is whether medicaid in fact is a public charge and a public benefit which would but that doesn't really answer that question constitutes a cash payment for your client faster past the criminal proper business he's got to convince the i j a that he's got forty qualifying quarters he's going to do all kinds of right but nobody got to those points yet you know it was like again i don't i don't see how we can decide for example the forty qualifying corners i mean that's you know it's something that we're asking to have does the fact that he had the ten continuances all this time and it was never was a public charge was what four years later so he had four years to raise issues dispute everything satisfy any requirements go for it to twelve see all of that and he didn't do anything well to tell you what did you do to cross the with an alter to talk see what he did was he provided he brought me ten witnesses with him to overcome any decision by the judge or any finding by the in three let's say the let's say you're correct but this case went on for ten years at several different hearing several different as i understand it lawyers maybe even a pro se appearance or two there was a lot more that was discusse does not the the alien have an obligation himself to come forward with evidence in order to produce this i mean you're coming really awfully late now in the process to try to overcome these terrorist fictional that just because they did receive medicaid for his medical treatment after the stroke does not make them a public charge when we hear from the government my name is katherine clarke appearing on behalf of the attorney general the public charge determination in this case was not the only basis for the agency's niall of adjustment of status the agency also concluded that there and i'm not sure i understand why that would see the affidavit no doubt is as i understand the statute what happens is that you find someone is likely to become a public charge and you can do that based on various t party alike like judge last year if you signed the affidavit of support that would be enough that is correct again that same regulation to thirteen a point two and one i  dollars and out of that trust fund comes payment by the trustee to me at one hundred thousand dollars a year so i'm taking out of the contingency that i might lose my job so i've got a guaranteed income from my trust fund of hundred thousand dollars a year you're saying that i somebody whether or not i'm likely to some of the charge that your view that is what the regulation and the federal register said regulation does itself have a set of exceptions saying the paragraph doesn't apply if and there's a series of things so presumably if you fall into one of those you don't have to whether this petitioner does or not there is an altar and of course the government is not because there was no isn't the finding with respect to the exemption the government would not assert one way or the other on that issue the exception however does require a different indicated but in order to get that you would have to file a w form and that wouldn't happen in this case that is correct that part of what concerns me here is is that you look at what happened for the immigration judge and he did appear to reach your father witnesses but the case he offered no none of the required documents even though he had been represented by his ponselle it is the same counsel for over a year prior to the merits hearing and there were not three to six continuances sufficient without the affidavit of support even if you had been able to present it was because the testimony does not operate in the manner of a contract and the way that the affidavit of support the surveys basically what the government is saying is if we're going to have somebody in the united states we want to be sure that this person doesn't become a public charge in the way we do that is in effect we ask for a guarantee from someone who says i agree to be financially responsible for this person the euro for what the term was that there is a provision for more than one person with the son sign on whatever forms you had to sign on and she could qualify that way the government does not dispute the fact that the joint sponsor the s incompetent bar that's out there bottom feeding and preying on them and then we hold them to these very strict standard with the we're supposed to do let me ask the question that we've so far been dancing around the receipt of medicaid qualify it's not like anybody who lives in california has never heard of this concept called medical and i think judge lester is meaning to put the question to you outside the context of the record of the record is what it is not understand what you're trying to defend and don't fall for that but in the real world is it the case this person actually should not be deemed a public charge because of the money he received or taking a step further if in fact he qualified for his forty quarters is there really a good reason for us to this criminal history that unless the attorney general exercises his discretion to let him stay he goes and the only exception to our jurisdiction is a colorable claim of law or a constitutional issue that might change in this case even if he's right about the medic cal situation that doesn't bear at all on the criminal issue doesn't know it is not a constitutional claim again it and i that's the second point is that really a constitutional claim that it doesn't really bear on whether or not the attorney general should exercise his discretion to in effect waive the criminal offense on the that is the lack of the affidavit of support and additionally that depends on your argument and i'm not sure i get bought into that that affidavit is of support is necessary and may or may not may or may not be necessary depending on how we  no use to sending this case back in any event ok thank you