twenty not an eclipse the court i'm charles nicholas caring for the petitioner lorenzo molina camacho this is a case which really presents two issues the first is whether the board of immigration appeals decision in which granted relief rather than remand in the case to the immigration judge for a evidentiary hearing under the new standard or stablish in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship which did not exist at the time of the immigration judge which came out a week after the immigration solution and said this is what the law is this is what the standards and you know what they should done i believe it's under noriega is remanded back to the judge with instructions saying this is the proper standard apply cases we're likely to see i would think so yeah i wouldn't we want to deal with them now instead of waiting another three years as far as this court well i mean the difficulty there is is that there are several holdings that the courts of appeal do not have jurisdiction to decide surely discretionary forms of relief if if it were just three judges and issuing orders of removal in the first instance so i don't know that that language really lends itself to an alternative interpretation but that that is my my first argument if i could get into the second now the second matter  anything that happens sometimes standards are unclear and you need the defense of only you don't have the from the voting and so i'm not exactly sure why for purposes of statutory construction what's the difference between removal and the slow between removal what's the difference between on the one hand cancellation of removal  cancel withholding of deportation etc well there's basically just there are different statutory provision that says in a case like this that the board of immigration appeals or at the time when the appeal period expires that seems to indicate that the board is again the final arbiter or court for the purposes of these cases in addition in the code of federal regulations talks about the boards at one thousand and three point three talks about the board the horse standard of review lopez that the statute relied upon by the court in that case is a different statute than applies to this case oh no i mean it's the same it's the same stature right is that a different s and in addition what i noticed is that petitioner discussed ryall in his brief to the board he was obviously aware of what the standard was and he didn't challenge it in his brief to the board either he he seemed to accept that that was the standard and in addition he can't demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the application of the board's new cases when what we're really talking about is a legal standard th hundred six the immigration judge's decision in this case was dated two thousand and one accordingly this wasn't a new standard in the sense that the board created some kind of standard that wasn't already in the cancellation hearing the judge allowed him to present whatever evidence he felt was relevant and it just doesn't make sense than an alien who wants to remain in the united states who is seeking the opportunity to live here legally and permanently would withhold evidence it's just it's illogical that you would do that in this type of situation particularly if as he said the standard had changed somehow and that he was not aware of it when he jumped know your honor that's true but in this case he's never told us at any point what he would have done differently what he would have submitted that he didn't submit what exactly he would have done to counteract the supposed prejudice that he suffered he didn't ever tell us anywhere what exactly was missing from his case that he would have otherwise put on if if in fact he had known what this alleged new standard was and he's never also claimed he that due process he claims that he was prejudiced but he never said that he would have succeeded if the case had in fact been we mandated or if the board had not applied this new standard etc he hasn't told us well i would have otherwise won if this had been done differently basically what he wants as you know just as just because he was saying he basically wants to put on some more evidence to see maybe this time he can prevail but that's not that's not what these that's i really don't know for sure your honor but i would estimate that it would be at least six months to a year maybe i really don't know there's really no way for me to tanser that and i certainly don't want to bind the border the immigration judge to a timeline that i happened to sat without immigration court is very busy and it would still have to be read docketed at the board and read docketed at the immigrant then the board would have to issue an order the immigration judge potentially would have to issue an order that does take time your honor and so i can't necessarily bind that there's a difference between a case involving cancellation of removal which was noriega lopez and this case where your client conceded remove the ability what's your response there is no difference for purposes of this argument because even if somebody concedes that there removeable there that is not an order there has to be an order of finding of the judge following  lawful permanent resident status on a hardship waiver he won his case before the immigration judge and so there's no so there has to be an order to remove it doesn't matter whether it's in cancellation deportation or whether there's been a concession that the under the under the i mean i think the congress passed health to these statutes which they passed and in this case they find it only immigration judges have the authority to issue orders of removal or deportation the