MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
child acquired citizenship now we feel that is similar to the situation in this case even though the actual divorce decree in this case did specify  physical custody of the child until the child came to the united states as for the agreement of the parents the mother and father however after he became a us citizen again with her agreement the petition for the children to come to the united states there were a total of six children in the family and all of them immigrated to the united states with the petitioner in this case being the last member of the family he was fifteen the old  first and then he at that point was transferred further dreamin of the mother and father from the physical and legal custody of the mother to the physical and legal custody of the father and you have a wi do grant the person joint custody and each of them has legal relationship created by the courts to create which imposes on the custodian and then it goes on to talk about certain responsibilities that portion of hawaii law is actually in the record in this case at page just so many  says that the naturalization of the parent having legal has to be when there has been a legal separation of parents and if it takes place before the child is eighteen it's a yes no i don't think look at these cases you know they're coming in fifteen years with more than fifteen years later and trying to look at it you know he had eleven years during which he could have naturalized didn't do it you know and now all the sudden he's right i mean that's that's our point is that enough time is not sufficient because it has to be there has to be clear and a lie has to be clear by the courts border before the it person is eighteen now if do it later and have to have been satisfied before it's a little bit different it's not a no that's not what are but it's a later it's a later statement that the earlier fact is true i mean if he's your father then you know now think that i just think that it's a more difficult standard for someone to become a citizen and i think that the requirement that that service in the state department have that honest and their understanding based on whether someone becomes a citizen i mean it's a it's an implied it's not something that someone applies for the parent goes in as a child it's something that happens automatically and i think congress wanted to limit it to certain situations and i don't think this type of change of custody because really what happened is that he wanted to come to the united states if these parents want to come to the united states he had never lived with his father he  fact i mean that the state department and the service have to be able to look at something that was presented here to them was you know the marriage certificate the birth certificate and the divorce decree which in effect thank you thank you very much basically and just would like to point out that the reason that the party the current we went back to the state court pledge because they had gone to the state department on an application for a u s passport in the state department
entirely at fault so there was constructive knowledge there was an actual knowledge we didn't have to prove either of those but in fact the vessel captain  found that this was a matter of common sense but it was common sense why in the state the training manual on board this vessel did it include instruction on how to go down the ladder properly so likely you get in accidents so there's a duty to have a competent crew there is a duty to train i have cited to the court jones act and see where their next cases where occupation as the ninth circuit has observed many times going to see is among the most dangerous of jobs because the very knowledge between a senior part of the crew under junior one and so back to jobs i did in high school and alledge and law school the last thing a young person wants to do is admit their incompetence you try and do the best you can and so there was no there was no t p training of any well your honor he also goes on page five that this was a rare special circumstance which again is an error of law here so the court treat the appeal as one where you'd have to find the findings of the of the court and the conclusions of law were clearly wrong there was certainly ample evidence and overwhelming evidence  testify that he examined that top wrong which was a mistake and they had not been altered since the accident he examined it like a year year and a half after the event and found it to be a good have to treat train people first of all to face the latter when you're going to hyper down the ladder and secondly that you don't have to teach people that partly to get greta over yourself and not try to clean it up before descending a life and there's there's no absolutely not a shred of evidence in this record that there was there was any circumstance didn't require grease and ample evidence and records that this went to the entire winter than greased before the vessel left seattle about six or seven days before the action and it was really no need
information in china and his product is to deliver it back to his clients here in the united states he reports back to the law firms the law firms to use that information in regulatory and criminal investigations that that's how this narrow sort of world negative business consequences occurring in the united states and that's how you frame the question and so when you look at my point business he has tremendous negative business consequences in the united states because all of his customers all of his online contracts are in the united states those are right out those are gone but that means that any foreign company who arrives on a customer bases folks located in the united states will pretend they have a domestic injury the supreme court one of the quotes nivea on to this one nothing in nine hundred sixty four secrets it's a clear indication congress intended to create a private right of action for injuries suffered outside the united states all these injuries were felt outside it was caused by the recognized that there is a lot of it is a lot of stack and it's very difficult to map on to every single one but you have to look at his business is he literally he only in china to gather information his real business his real base  china since it companies which sought to conduct business in china and most importantly most importantly they found that there was no us offices or any tangible property that they had here and trying to not keep saying here in this is pretty clear here that whether it's business interests or whether or not it seems handler manchester's really you know there's who would be really no difference that in fact was a business who would who would ross something armada here there's a business be their competitors about another type of business injury she said yes there was but that was in brazil so to try and collapse again business on the property is a mistake and that's not how judge taylor did in this  arguing actual ongoing business actual work that is being done not some spectrum with thing that might happen the cases focus on spec new things that might happen we're talking actual business that we had at the specific u s legal reasons and i think she's asked the world they want you to ask
more the other of those cases and the court i'm sure is familiar with them the government has also addressed millions fluor to your drug system starting at the top is aggravated trafficking the next most serious is trafficking the next most serious is furnishing and then the simplest one is simple possession in the government suit there are really six reasons they asked that crime possession of two grams or more of heroin and it was a crime left and i don't want to miss an opportunity to address that robbery conviction because because that's really the worst aspect of it that the defendant is challenging it seems to me that there are three possibilities with respect to a robbery one is i simply say look me your money and that's all i do that's not going to be a
before we go down further in designing crazy really backed up against the corner the property here with the building and that access like we talked about through the existing property here and then a potential for future access this way but that again will really depend on if you will permit that stream crossing here because this is where the stream goes so starting with basically the side of things in the retaining wall and then maybe in the future adding on that other access for t was like twenty percent of your area your your your lot here and then you're losing almost half your parking spots they have there really is no way to tier and still be able to fit everything in when you need to because you can't put a wall in on the record stream the rain so that's and so we're right up against right here is the fifty foot flood way and you can't really see very well on there but the wetlands are right where the you can look into that for sure you're looking down here and now that you said how tall the building be with relation to what you're seeing from the street we don't really have a final assigned on the building at this point but maginnis it's planet right now to be a two
when if it's on t v or sixty five if the employee in this case the disabled person is below sixty years of age we understand that according to the definition of the diagnosis and there's competing evidence that the plans were lying on in rejecting it is your argument that it doesn't matter how good that competing evidence is because you put forward affirmative evidence or is your argument that the competing evidence is so we need to be arbitrary to conclude that your evidence wasn't strong enough no you are or are is competing evidence no reasonably could suggest an opposite conclusion so i'm just trying to figure is that your position ok we understand that according to the language the main language of the of the policy you qualify for that boy info i would like to add that specifically in this case there is no compelling was reasonable and supported by substantial ev santana benefits for two years due to his mental condition which was a condition on which he claimed benefits initially met life at last vice m billy and the necessity to sold me objective evidence sustaining or supporting his claim that he had one of those conditions that for which which the family attorney made reference and evidence there but there's also competing evidence that we think is more persuasive i don't know if there's a difference between those two things or whether what exactly your result is about how to interpret plan the fact that o the claimant wins if there is a check to the evidence but you seem to be saying that even though the plan says that he still loses as long as there's competing objective evidence that's what i'm not following no because the man condition or that determination is not a kind may not be good thank you thank you thank you very much
says why would we make this decision at this point when it may never be an issue you may go back there we send it back bradley missions and you say i want to two days fourteen zero one will have to worry about whether it's a sex excess of petition or fit to original
in our open papers typically the board apply the statute and deny the motion because it was numerically and time barred therefore the board's exercise of its just question and applying the statute cannot be interviews of in the present case yeah i mean how do you know you're on earth in this regard if you have filed a motion to reopen regarding the lisa petition thirty days after the board's final decision first appeared for the him before the immigration judge he told the immigration charge that he had an approved piece of petition and he was waiting for his priority date to become current and under the adjustment of s eight and take my understanding of decided in support of the notion that somehow a priority date a current priority date wouldn't be doing simply having an approved visa would suffice and that become too because of the procedural requirement rather the alien has to establish that the visa was immediately available and the visa was only immediately available once the priority date became current the priority became current in two thousand and three therefore i had no matter how effective the council would have been there will be no crime officially eligibility for adjustment of status to thirty days or ninety days after the fourth and upon approval the beast will give me give me a little bit but it's not right but here i am so if it's not immediately available garcia doesn't cover his situation and his wasn't i
supervision was not appropriate so for
been double counting the court's order however doesn't recognize that page five of the courts where the court goes to ten thousand seven hundred and forty four dollars of which is that overinflated by about three thousand dollars and again do you know in this particular case if they disagreed with the evidence we presented in meeting our burden of proof and they were going to say wait a minute there's business expenses that are being considered is this and that that they doesn't say that my client had an education or was capable of earning more money that that was the problem he doesn't i don't know what he feels the problem was if he felt the problem was that the court didn't have everything available to him in terms would have been more than enough to meet these expenses that he's having on a monthly basis without racking up a gap so i think the poor had ample evidence to conclude both by what mr wright did present in the financial affidavit as well as her real income on her financial affidavit either but that's where that came into play the settlement agreement of the parties addressed both of those row houses and allocated them between the parties there's a simple question the person has to take five minutes to come up with a yes or no answer however beyond the disadvantage this court would have the evidence is fairly concrete that there were serious challenges  seventy five dollars per month well you've got expenses over face that are ten dollars a month even with a man area bring it down to six you only have four to seventy five hours a month income there's no big get to show you're paying his expenses an amount of income based upon the ability to meet living expenses without incurring major debt the court's findings are consistent with the evidence because ruling is consistent with the findings in the ruling is credibility if that is his birth prove then the facts that were before the trial were i do believe that my client was better i'm not arguing that he wasn't but the sooner you knew that he was incredible
it happens from time to time although as we were just discussing you know we've had remarkable luck with video conference arguments over the past year but these things happen so we will  that adverse credibility was being appealed because i didn't read anything in there and maybe your argument it sounds like is more complicated than that but but i'd like to see something the notice of appeal that's generally what we look to yes your hon clear or review and looking at the i g s findings on that it just said she hasn't identified objectively independent evidence and she actually did have some objectively independent evidence  when it goes to that she has not identified any evidence that would meet that standard that shows that likelihood of torture it doesn't show that the board didn't review the evidence just saying that the evidence like to address the tax claim and so in this case there is no presumption of regularity under colby holder or there's any indication that a b i a did not consider evidence in the record  discretion standard the application of issue waiver in violation of liberal construction would be a legal error that that that would so she situated to her would be subject to persecution and we think for a a procedure party has been told that they're not credible that is a a reasonable way to respond by providing objective
presented they turn it into essentially three questions presented that each have some parts after the response to the st question has to do with procedure and i don't want to belabor procedure when substance is clearly more important but in this case the procedure actually is investigation into the question of whether the fifty percent interest in this property was actually zero dollars or anything of that nature and so i would submit that the only question before we uncover question that's before the score is whether the other th specific dollar amount and give this court rules that factor has to be a specific dollar amount indicated in the petition to revive it would really do a lot of damage to basically every every judgment in the state as for anything other than a specific dollar amount you know specific dollar amount that can be reduced arabic numbers i have heard of numerals so anything for specific performance and judgement st specific performance have basically no interest whatsoever in the property if you were given a fifty percent interest in that money not only would it be a it would be an injustice but it would be a serious problem to anyone that has a judgment for anything other than a specific agree they sell it now maybe they won't force them to sell it because it's underwater and hopefully it can find both parties who are heads will prevail and even party wants to bring money to the table if you have to sell it but i think that's the road you can see when you get to be on the entry here and you can find under six you know two are going to hear it i think we're happy that i think we're happy with the result but we're not allowed to force because seven years has passed and since the law is a clear you know twelve addition drove i make sure that you have a judgment to enforce and then we can enforce it
with consent and she claims it wasn't how is a reasonable doubt relating to whether or not there was or wasn't the sentence should be vacated or reverse of a basis if there was no controverted issue fair which relates to whether it was rude wasn't consensual as opposed to whether or not to give the physical act actually occurred  completely review away the evidence on  modify a judgment of the trial  time visualizing the difference between one sperm and nose or one sperm and two spurs in the mouth and how that would affect the jury in determining no it doesn't actually doesn't apply here still a reason i do think it is because it definitely make it what it is part of what happened to him and his case as a result of his conviction he doesn't have to register as a result
andrea the aggravating factors there's three distinct i detailed factors that can be charged among those charged here was that a police officer is killed in the course of performing his official duties there's also that a police officer was killed  wasn't any testimony about what he was specifically doing when he was changing assured or something that rational trier of fact couldn't find that he wasn't acting in his  theory that this is more of a retaliation situation two three forty one does not allow you to reasoning for the first time i understand what you're saying you're saying this was actually a reply to their respo officer first of all there's circumstantial evidence that not only did he shoot did this officer but then he went on a tirade and shooting it other officers and another person you're saying rational prior bad couldn't find that he actually started an been taken in the performance of the students is away since he is always obligated to attempt to attempt to prevent the commission of a crime in his presence any action taken working there's obviously enough evidence to support the state's contrary position a slot in illinois says that even officers who are off duty let's assume that  the case law in illinois midnight shift or not whether they're getting it done in which as long and coffee does that is there any case law that would suggest that those officers aren't performing their duties just because they're having
however the most common one yeah the one that caused the separation between then and wife if we recall in the beginning of our discussions and to have when we spoke of how to have conclusion of this extract of the separation one has to understand that when we talk of separation this separation is not restricted to the separation between husband and wife it may be between mother and children it may be between father and children it may be between two brothers between two sisters between two friends within partners and the most common one among them is that harbor doubts about one another about each other and should not unnecessarily entertain this doubt that whatever happens to me is on the basis of the have because what then happens one becomes obsessed with this doubt  many forms of protection many forms of defense systems so that those that want to perform this type of to have may not necessarily become successful and among the things that our dean has p mind that not to make mention that one is under treatment because many a time rolls that are performing that when they know of become aware and if you are under treatment they will continue fighting you therefore you should keep th
i don't see how that will affect the findings of this court however he and his wife are still living together and they're talking about  on it might have been based on more recent information i'm not quite certain i can't recall but i do know that even with trying to matter at the point i had left prints more recent country information in two profile states that it is now national policy that no action will be taken against us but both parents resided overseas for at least a year and their two children when they return to china for them or children living permanently overseas i now counted for best planning purposes when the parents returned to china so the information that was cited by the immigration judge in this case as well as the more recent information brings by the board a matter of c c and there may be some fees that petitioner would have to be forced to pay in any event the information substantiate the decision by the agency there's nothing here that would compel a contrary finding