canalis is a documented alien who's been in the united states for twenty four years he came here at age six with his mother his only family his children his mother his brother and in the united states currently serving a seventy month sentence because he returned to the united states without permission of the attorney general after having been deported in absentia and the reason he returned was the place he was staying in el salvador was destroyed by an deportation there are two cases there are two prongs to the collateral tax first of all he needs to demonstrate that there's been a due process violation and secondly he needs to demonstrate that he was prejudiced as a result there can be  little doubt in this case that he was denied due process because appearing late to a hearing all previous hearings he had attended for a change of venue and has a question about whether he was at the courthouse some time he claims he was there on grounds for withholding the record is a little bit garbled at the end but the judge indicated that he believed he might have a case for withholding gave him the forms for withholding he's only problem was he believed that possibly the underlying because of the fear of returning to a particular country so there was a least a plausible grounds that have to be a probable that grounds a possible grounds it's a plausible grounds for returning if not like the case of for instance the right to martina's in which he was precluded family was related to the government then it gets garbled he says something about fear of people don't live something to that nature so you never connect that fear to you know whatever the reason the ground for  his declaration which was admitted in the district court it was made in connection with defendant's initial motion on the signed and the signed decorations actually submitted at the hearing after the defendant was aware of what the government response was to the claim due process argument and the declaration was it appears carefully drafted and states only that the dependent intended to appear on time and that he arrived at the building on the morning of the hearing and that he was delayed for some unstated period at the entrance of the building after he was the lady he proceeded immediately to the hearing room so consistent with this declaration it is possible that the defendant did not arrive to tell a lot of that the nine anytime in the morning at the outside of the building and was delayed for a some unspecified period there's no evidence that would place this within the cases cited by the defendant that found a due process violation for example the factors beyond the defendant's control rather the case is analogous to the sharma case cited by the government in that case the defendant was forty five minutes to an hour late and claimed that the reason for the delay was was parking problems and traffic in the court found that that as to the prejudice prong there's i would submit nothing about this case that makes it different from the on broken line of cases that requires an actual showing a colossal grounds to believe that the defendant would have been  held in leon leon the defendant here had every opportunity to make a showing in the district court here on collateral attack and as the court held in leon leon the due process rights are protected when he when the defendant has that opportunity once again had the opportunity the district court he did not put anything in the declaration to establish what he would have proffered in connects with his immigration proceedings what the nature of his relief would have then other than a reference to the transcript  rely on his statements to the immigration judge was number one general conditions in el salvador and as the case the government cited in its brief this this court has previously held that general conditions and also what are as a matter of law are enough the second grounds is a general statement about some of this family was in a government and some people are killed and again this court has held that that allegations that the family members even this was the statement was tied to a family member that's not sufficient defendant argues that withholding is discretionary and therefore it takes and makes this case different from all the other cases and i would submit that withholding is not discretionary indeed it is much less discretionary than most of the other cases this court sees in these types of cases to prove withholding which is a higher burden than asylum found it would have had to prove by a preponderance to the immigration court that he would face persecution based on race nationality religious belief it's doctrine and if he would make that showing then as a general matter the grounding of the whole and is required so far from being discretionary it's really it's really case two twelve to relieve the defendants hey it's purely discretionary relief and it's granted more than fifty percent of the time in general therefore that's enough and the court said no the defendant had to put forth additives to show a profitable ground that in only portion of that declaration going to that hearing was the top of page sixty three paragraph six for the declaration and the only thing that says is that the hearing was scheduled for eight thirty he intended to appear on time the morning of the hearing i was delayed at the entrance for the building and after i cleared security i immediately proceeded to the hearing room there's no evidence from the defendant as to when he arrived the government put in a transcript of the of the hearing and made on the record the immigration judge said this was call for eight thirty it's now nine thirty i don't see that the alien here during the court directed somebody to go out into the hallway into the into the room next door and to check that person in that case there was absolutely no basis for withholding and that's why the court would not find prejudice in that particular case furthermore under the case authority he was not required to prove his claim by any proponents he was just to show that there was a plausible claim o he introduced the testimony from the hearing before the immigration judge the first immigration judge it wasn't the final hearing it was the news the preliminary hearing for the first immigration judge and what was the  that was the language where he was talking about el salvador and the problems in el salvador and his family and people get killed and that's when the immigration judge said well i suggest you fill out an application for withholding