whether the agency fail to follow its own regulations and committed legal error by assigning reconsideration to a single member of the board and whether in regarding the other petition whether the district court properly referred  seven limits the availability of relief in this case cancellation of removal for certain non permanent residents by virtue of the titian years manner of entry under the visa waiver program in this case  whether he was actually prejudiced by that waiver or position is addressed in the briefest that's concession or would have had other options to gain admission there's no indication that he was otherwise in there simple in light of his youth and family ties so one can do believe that that constitutes prejudice and an additional note on the prejudice disposed unfortunately not raised in the brief but it should be considered that when it comes to relieve such eligibility for that relief should have some need to be taken into account unfortunately because those individuals are not parties to the litigation there is no such opportunity for this pertains to the ten minutes sorry for interrupting you it's judge scotter i i've got two questions eleven thing i'm confused about you're talking about cancellation of removal i didn't cancellation of removal was even before us i didn't think it had anything to do with this case in the reason is because i thought that the plaintiff was i'm sorry your client was precluded from seeking any form of relief in terms of cancellation of removal in other words all he could do was seek asylum why are we talking about escalation over removal that's correct your honor the application was perturbed method and their relief was not discussed below high only brought it out ok so if all we're about is asylum then i want to go back to the st point is your point that as a matter of law parents cannot execute the waiver in question there is no no signed waiver but yes ok and what what evidence do you have that it was not even assuming that it that's before us and in that kind of crystallized way what evidence do you have that two points you've made one point about waiver it's not before us he made another point about cancellation of removal that's not before us the only issue that i see before us is the asylum application and i am i wrong about that i don't i don't mean to you know our but i'm not really narrow this i'm just trying to focus trying to figure out because your brief your brief covers a lot of ground and i'm trying to figure out what precisely is the question before us persecution that he suffered as a child which was unlikely to repeat itself due to the fact that he is now an adult but he was still face other serious harm upon return the i j a denied petitioners application on two grounds the board only affirmed on the issue of nexus between the past persecution that he suffered and his membership in a particular social group within the family in doing s consider whether the petitioner stanley membership was in fact one central reason for the abuse if i may give an example of the way that the agency apply next motive analysis considering individual detention is merely a means of access for that individual's personal tendencies which would not be i believe a desirable result in this case the agency failed to recognise that in the case of the child and enter from ariel abuse the access that the court in the board or opportunity that they turn to is inseparable from the family membership this is the fact that the abuser in this case may have had they're not asleep had some perverse tendencies just not change the fact that but for the petitioners membership in this family  that individual would not have had access and the opportunity to carry out the if you studied it there is nothing in the records as to mine you have a minute and a half left thank you do your honors  court there is overlap this far as to your tax on the underlying order but the issue of custody prolonged in this case indefinite is not moot because in the event that the petitioner successful and partition are returned united states proceedings are not a part of the petition for you in fact they're separate and collateral proceedings and therefore they are not within the ambit of district this court's jurisdiction over overview petitions so to the extent that he's and so the likelihood of his being taken into detention again as a v w i later a very low if not nonexistent and so for those reasons we believe that that petition for if you move to an exact position are never waiver issue and his his his challenge that because he was a minor at the time that he was admitted into being that of states h i believe it was twelve in two thousand and one he suffers prejudice because he could not have knowingly and contest that his parents waived his rights for him he doesn't he doesn't allege that the parents waiver of his rights was not knowing or voluntary and so the entertainment of the parents waiver of his rights to him is appropriate under the law the d w p rather than to have the kids admission into the united states under a regular tourist visa but that can't form the basis for the president because even if you were if you were not a minor at the time that he sought admission in two thousand he would be in the same position as the petitioner and by and this court explicitly help him by those aliens do not cannot show the required prejudice even if not even if the waivers not knowing voluntary because they can always decline to waive their rights and instead seek admission under some other way such as the church to them but because petitioner appears to have no arguments before the court regarding the waiver shall move on to the asylum claim unless the court has any other questions on background with respect to be a silent issue which as judge cutter pointed out if prop is the only issue properly before the court really  protected grounds to the extent the petitioner is arguing that this is a mixed motive case that makes motive analysis doesn't apply because the board of immigration appeals here held that there was absolutely no nexus at all and the reason for that is the victim was found because he was a member of the family but that wasn't why he just take the victim and motive goes to why and motive this essential under the supreme court's decision  because it's only that it was his access to petition or the how that was that that was that goes to whether or not he was a family member and not whether or not that the the uncle targeted him solely within the discretion of the board member there is no constitutional violation because it is a discretionary determination by the board member itself and he hasn't the sta prejudice or have his decision would have been different if the three member panel had decided to skate rather than to the single board member unless the court had any for their question the