should let me just ask whether we are taking any precautions here about the release of this is currently on live stream does your are there any concerns about proceeding a live streaming with the public apply it's not that she isn't idle it's not that she will receive it but at this point there's nothing else that would need to happen except for that piece to be reopened you know what occurs to me but there's a two step process here i mean if call it what you want to call it she has to get test that element if she doesn't she doesn't get relief so at most this is an issue of nomenclature as to whether she's potentially eligible until the waiver comes through better way of characterizing it why is this not just a matter of terminology here because none of this is as a i mean we're practically both applications already to be filed to be presented to the same decision maker who are deciding whether an exercise two and describing a list of the eligibility requirements for who is eligible to adjust status it says that the applicant applicant must be admissible to the u s or for a lawful lawful permanent residence or eligible for a waiver protection against torture and she contended that all of those facts together constitute exceptional circumstances warranting reopening so this wasn't a claim that she was sitting on if it had arisen that a different time to a sponsor a reopening wouldn't be an issue because why have all the requirements to submit a timely application to reopen based on new eligibility had both applications presented with a motion to reopen and the v i i just got it wrong  eligible or actually eligible isn't a rare or extraordinary circumstance that warrants reopening and so even if they go back and fix that error you would run in to the  but there is another issue your honor it's that mr armey claim wasn't based only on her eligibility is also based on the evidence of the extraordinary circumstances she put forward the extreme hardship to her or us citizen children of removal as well as  referring to the illegal they are that that they didn't consider the other evidence submitted exactly your honor it's not like some cases where it's just not we're if they had that evidence in mind by saying in itself it showed that they were focusing only on their assessment for  they did not make their exercise of discretion based on the evidence and arguments that she presented that's both a due process by a reason and a legal error and so you're honors that you asked us to address do you once in this particular issue the application of to judges to be a indicator better decline to find it sets of circumstances warranting sue a sponsor when saying something doesn't register exceptional doesn't mean they completely failed to consider it they adjudged it not to rise to the exceptional circumstances threshold but i do want to hear one the nd point on the on the cat point and let me maybe start help somewhere a little different from where you would start help let's let's grant let's grant the other predicates of the factual maybe maybe th billboard was mistaken here on what the that is the procedural threshold for reopening or something else even if we grant those things and you can look back to them later i want to know all why isn't acquiescence just fatal to your right i don't see how any of this new evidence cast light on acquiescence could have an adverse finding the neck we have since from beforehand so even if you win on you met the procedural standard or yell only has to be credible possibility for when you mean how is there evidence that the police failed to prevent one murder how does that amount to any kind of evidence of acquiescence a murder happens in jamaica you're saying that by itself tends to show acquiesced you're gonna think it's the fact that it was orchestrated without interference and without a parent record question of any kind what evidence what evidence has your client submitted that shows that there was no government interference and there were no government repercussions your client alleges that this person was involved but what evidence admissible but your eleventh's as your client submitted that suggests you know that there was an investigation or of suspects or anything that affects the short news article there's like a sentence does the sentence a this is ok by the jamaican police of this is not a priority or anything like that that you there are article your honor does not however require to do on a motion to reopen its consider both the new evidence and the existing evidence together and its name and whether that satisfies an agreement that's so every time there's a newspaper article that mentions a killing fact that he's a bolt has nothing to do with that quests she has no personal knowledge or admissible evidence that the police weren't told that there's a deal with the police that the police are too scared of anything like that correct  scheme that that that the police would not prevent violence against her because of their involvement in that lottery scheme and others the immigration and require seedings credited that police officers were involved with that particular lottery scheme and you are  and that's an existence with the broader evidence in the record that corrupt that russian and and and violence related to lotteries use is a significant problem and did you tender country conditions evidence that the police is finding so long so yes i wanted to just wrap up on the convention against torture point the evidence regarding that violence in jamaica as well as the evidence that mr harvey the person the motion will be denied as the respondent has not shown that exception to the ninety day filing bias consider their motion but she's not submitted evidence that she is more likely than not to be subjected to torture that's the wrong standard it should be the morning may please the court sherry glazer appearing on behalf of the united states attorney general as mr b pointed out your honors there are two separate issues in this case there's the board's refusal to invoke it so a spontaneous already which the court la paragraph and his argument that the analysis or lack thereof violates both to process and is a legal issue that we do have jurisdiction over absolutely i'll start with his or her argument that is a legal jersey that is a legal in looking at this last paragraph is that when an individual like her becomes the recipient of a family based vs a petition when that happens it provides a piece of it's a mediately available to the person the individual doesn't have to wait for a priority date to become current which can take quite a bit of time and provides a path to apply for adjustment of status all the board was saying is when that happens after an order for a movable has become administratively final that's not rare that's not an exceptional circumstance and so she really is only potential if it didn't it didn't evaluate her adjustment of status application based on any legal determination it just said that's not rare or exceptional and so we're not going to invoke our suicide on to florida because of that there was purely discretionary to you see that in the st line of the statute where it says that would that such a waiver may be granted within the attorney general's discretion if an individual meet certain requirements and the same is true for adjustment of status even if somebody does meet all the requirements it doesn't mean the person is going to be granted it as a matter of pure discretion and here we have an individual who is convicted of aggravated felony to twelve h waiver just not waive that so we still have that in the picture so the board really by saying she is potentially eligible and becoming potentially eligible after her final order of removal became administrative leave final at somewhere exceptional that's all the board was saying it was acted purely within its discretion there is no legal determination whatsoever and she brings up clooney and clooney is a very different situation from here include me what the board said was we decline to invoke or sue a spontaneous already saying that  is concerned about his future health care in albania was relevant to his future persecution client and this court said well that actually could legally be relevant to his claim so we're going to remain on the case because the board relied on an incorrect legal premise we don't have anything like that in this case anything whatsoever and so the government would argue that there was in fact no legal error the board did not rely on any incorrect legal premise whatsoever in declining to invoke it still a spontaneous consider the family circumstances well that's an interesting point to bring up if you look at her motion to reopen the harms to her family that she cites in her motion to reopen if that's a sponsor reopening that the suspend to reopen argument is in paragraph eighteen on page twenty nine of the administrative record and what she argues is that her contributions to this country should merit still a slant to reopening  that she didn't have any convictions before or after her convictions in two thousand for her conviction in two thousand and fourteen and that her conviction does not reflect your true character that was the basis on which she requested to a spontaneous opening so to the extent that she's arguing that the board regards to her constitutional claim you know her argument it's interesting because she her argument is that her due process eight claim is focused on the board's failure to consider the record in her motion to reopen with regards to her just no status application status application is the juda kate and she's trying to jump the court forward to skip over that but that is the central issue in fact in page forty two of her brief she even contends that because she has this approved family based visa petition the quote only barrier to her applying for relief is the need to reopen her proceedings and that's no small thing because this court has held that the boards the board essentially has unfettered discretion in whether to su case or not and that's where tourists really comes into play in the analysis in torres and in hernandez's court held that when a due process claim is raised the st thing that the court must do in any situation where due process claim is ra it doesn't matter what the details are of the claim is to assess whether there's a constitutionally protected liberty interest at stake and there is not one here and the analysis in torres is really telling and the government would request that the courts follow that analysis and apply it to this case and this court reasoned that torres had no due process liberty interest that issue in that case was two trucks the relief former two hundred and twenty relief because any grant of that relief was purely speculative because the statute doesn't set out any criteria for determining under what circumstances the former two trucks to relieve should be granted and the same is true with still a spawn to reopening if you look at the regulation at eight c f r one thousand and three point two as a you know in fact this court has previously found in a case the government cites coyote you heyst that the board that there's nothing in the regulation that requires the board to reopen proceedings using it sue is foreign to authority under any circumstances there is no criteria set up the regulation there are no guidelines there is nothing it's purely within the board's discretion and because of that there is no constitutionally protected liberty interest at stake here and her due process claim fails right there  not go any further and while she cites have to lie to argue that this court should follow that case you know and that this court in abdulla i which was issued before torres and before hernandez did say that despite the fact that there is no constitutional right to asylum facing removal are entitled to due process the court didn't reconcile at all that one line in the case with the fact that you know asylum is discretionary but the st step but what the court has to do is determine whether there's a constitutionally protected liberty interest and there just isn't one here she has no constitutionally protected liberty interest in being granted suicide to reopening or even being considered for it and a court  analyze that nd aspect in torres too and that analysis is also perfectly a clickable to this case now the court held up because discretionary relief is a matter of grace rather than a matter of right and i don't have a due process liberty interest in such relief and again it looked to to twelve c found it because it uses no explicit mandatory language that could create any protectable expectation of being given such relief sets forth no presumption in favor of relief and speaks only to discretion that really it's just the mere hope that it will be granted and the same is true for sue a spontaneous opening and the government would argue who would argue that because for those reasons or her due process claim up that so the court can deny her motion to her on time a motion to reopen to reapply for cap protection just based on the acquiescence problem because her motion to reopen in terms of acquiescence i necessary for every single cackling no matter what evidence somebody presents regarding if somebody is going to in fact torture them or you know whatever is presented it has to also somebody also always has to present evidence of acquiesce and there is absolutely and what somebody has to do emotionally open of course is present new evidence evidence that was not presented before and there is absolutely none in her motion to reopen all she does is rely on evidence presented in the underlying proceedings and a motion to reopen is not an opportunity to sort of get a nd bite at the apple to challenge an underlying decision when the individual likes here did not file a petition for view within thirty days of that decision what she says in her motion is while i cannot contend that all members of law enforcement would fail to assist me i still submit that many of them would turn a blind eye a blind eye to my torture and as demonstrated during my individual hearing before the immigration court there's no doubt that law enforcement personnel participate in lottery schemes and essentially what acquiesce to any torture is all she does is rely on the old evidence and to the extent that she's trying to rely on this article regarding miss warren's murder there's no evidence whatsoever that a public official her any individual acting in an official capacity in jamaica acquiesce to that torture consented to that torture remain willfully blind to that torture there is no evidence whatsoever really in this on this particular aspect or motion has styled more like a motion for reconsideration asking for the board to look at the evidence that was presented before and reach a different conclusion which is not what a motion to reopen the harm to her family and her status as a cooperator was very much part of her exceptional circumstances argument paragraph eighteen that the government was referring to that's where she st mentions the exceptional circumstances standard and there that includes mention of her being a law and caring and nurturing about some of the other bases for argument that there are exceptional circumstances and to the discussion of her cooperation as well as her physically ill mother and see if united states children can seem to depend on her for  those arguments were presented in support of her request for us to a sponsor a real meaning and none of them were addressed and so your honor is that to just comment again on why that's a legal or constitutional error the government's argument appears to be that judge becker's decision abdul has a different kind of case of do was describing that even when there is discretionary relief at issue the order or the i j a has to consider what evidence and arguments are present jang your honour's make clear that that principle applies and the reopening context and hope you also made clear that that principle applies in the su a spontaneous opening context to the assent hopes is in conflict with those with those decisions it's not persuasive and so your honesty again the court doesn't need to resolve the debate between whether this is a constitutional error enough because a legal error alone is sufficient to warrant reopening on that claim and this is a legal error the failure to consider evidence which is basically harm to her in jamaica than at her last percy tings and that's because the person she feared was now in italy aware of her cooperation and was responsible for violent acts committed in jamaica the point of a motion to reopen is to win a pl it as true and failing to draw reasonable inferences in her favor the fact that the order may certainly go lehrer's both in her original proceedings and also in her motion to reopen this is not as not an excuse the board committed the same errors in terms of the standard on relocation as well as the focus on official policies rather than the results of those official policies when it comes to act we sense the evidence or in the records show that fifty percent of murders and  a stems from lottery schemes and the police corruption contributed significantly to that that's the kind of evidence that the board was required to consider and that it failed to do so your arsenal must support us from the questions we asked the court to reverse and with