good afternoon your honour's please the court my name is zachary open associates in phoenix arizona this is my st oral argument before the court and respect the like to reserve three minutes for a bottle this case attorney general's authority in terms of his referral of cases is that we had longstanding precedent of administrative closure through many or multiple e i a decisions matter of o administrative closure the simple fact is that him referring a case to himself this castro tom was was the decision that ultimately came out was a product of  the attorney general's longstanding views on immigration and while our brief does focus on that issue the main point that i want to focus on with my oral argument is just stop you there and just ask why i'm not sure that issue is properly before us and i hope you'll address it because you know in your opening brief you focused on the process argument that you started with that it was in castro tom so we don't ordinarily consider an argument that's not raised all the reply so why why should we consider that argument here well the st point is that if we're talking about the attorney general's bias we believe it's basically a different side of the same coin of caster tom being decided erroneous lee that the attorney general he interpreted the regulations and in just in is manner that was a product of bias and that's especially when we had much prior precedents allowing for administrative closure as well as decades of practice under both republican and democratic what what what was the argument for why well i think the main argument is that i personally had seen thousands of immigrants exactly like this respondent administrative closure for the purpose of judicial economy was was very have been all the time in phoenix and while the different immigration judges had different views on administrative closure many cases like this like other cases that we have pending before the court on he does not have a path to relief outside of removal proceedings and sole to be perfectly frank with the court this petitioner could have had his case opposition was very central to the judge's determination to deny administrative closure but we believe that that that stephen was essentially a steamin in line with the administration and that that that simply that it was a how could we find even if we agree with you on all the other elements of the due process like how could we find that there was precious well my client was prejudiced by castro tong and by the way the of the board simply deferred to that case and said castro tom is the law of the land we're not even gonna address administrative closure and review it whatsoever and sol respectfully your honor i do believe that when you look at the precedent as fishley this to at least attempt this but the way that his background i guess really reflects on the the way that he interpreted i just i guess when you're when you're departing from so much precedent and you're now saying well will nothing that was decided in the past matter here's here's my interpretation and then you have this history of of of of what what what our opening brief different when you're an attorney general and you're referring the keys to yourself one of the problems i have as is he didn't refer your case to himself but it would be different if you work castro that the attorney general ended this longstanding practice with one case and the result of that prejudice my client the b i a refused to even consider that issue on appeal and so  no way that that that attorney general with his long standing history of bias and killing the bipartisan immigration reform that that most people in this country eighty percent supported that he was going to neutrally decide administrative closure because his goal and our ministrations goal currently was to just remove as many people as possible and that's what they were allowed to do with them for sniper priorities and allowed to do a changing regulations but not changing the law tomb nor has petitioner in this case pointed to any specific passages phrases wording in the decision evidencing as such and of course that is his burden to show what he wanted to do but i understand up that way that i've always i worried about this for many years in a very odd is there any other sense from my not that immediately comes to my mind although i would be happy to look further into that and if i glean anything i can certainly inform the court i would note that certainly he could have done this with regulations are our proposed regulations that are currently true but he did the attorney general does have of course the ability to certify you know decisions as is the way he had done it in this case and previous attorney generals and i'm sure will be that he is for future attorney generals have crimes in a style or had committed crimes and they were asylum proceedings and such so there are decisions that have been certified in the past excuse me that have more of th evidence for that he doesn't point to any and just also to indicate or to look the court was well that my opposing counsel had raised challenges car counsel and that is with regard to petition or is the argument that there was prejudice because if i understood it correctly there was prejudice because the board never have the our our view of course is that matter of castro time is irony and i think so so if you found it invalid on the substance or on the merits then you could send this case back on remand for the ford issue and so he has waived any challenge to the substance of the merits i think however practically with the court is likely to do with that remain on this case because the board did rely on castro time to he has no relief so any request for administrative closure for him would simply be open ended and a request essentially to avoid remov i think that what the court would st look to obviously is the the face of the decision the four corners of the decision and whether or not that decision itself was facially neutral and then you know certainly they would look at those statements but they would go back st and foremost to the decision itself to look at the four corners of that decision is it a new trial was it the result of an extensive why with the proclamation and how they looked at and they considered the statements that had been made the public statements that have been made but still at bottom said we look to the decision itself and we look to what is in that decision is officially neutral what is the process that was taken to undertaken to arrive at the conclusion and things like that and that you can do things that you do think that the kind of bias challenge  our view would be that they would have to be brought by that person itself and that's one of the weaknesses of this case here is that you know even here mr castro tom himself has never brought a bias claim and and so you know when  the standard is personal bias there's certainly no indication of that personally towards the position in this case so it would need to be brought by that that individual physician or himself not someone who is seeking to essentially pi would just note that castro tom couldn't challenge and that's that's part of the procedural problem of this case and and why we're asking this court to overturn castro thomas is the attorney general process and this referral just is this is absolutely a product of bias and when you look at page seventeen of our opening brief we have a footnote three it's towards the end of the page the attorney general made a statement basically stating that administrative closure he he did not agree with it that there should be a removal or a grant of relief that's it and so we had prejudgment before castro