time i would like to reserve three minutes rebuttal sure this case is about to what extent a legal system will sacrifice fair process and rule of law for the sake of expediency and numbers and kalish prejudice was in the nature of this case immigration court advanced mr martinez this case from october ninth of july thirtieth important counsel just a couple of weeks before hand and then denied the continuance a motion to withdraw because of this mr martinez was never able to fully present his asylum case let me ask you a question how long have you practiced immigration ten years have you ever made a motion to continue continue and not received a response from the immigration court yet fail to show up on the date of the hearing you know me personally i have none but do you think that that's appropriate behavior via lawyer well we need very well having ninety case here also but this case is about structural error just imagine this situation the same situation i don't excuse for a moment what apparently happened here that is the case was originally set for october is that right and that's you and him then it was advanced earlier to april yes and counsel moved to continue and that  was denied and some pretty sharp language in the transcript from the immigration judge but it did seem unusual that the lawyer didn't bother to show  the morning of the advanced hearing date when they didn't know whether there'd been a ruling on the motion to continue if you look at the context  submitted a motion for continuance and then it was ruled on i think three days before he got the answer and at that point he was scheduled for vacationing at a quick another court hearing out of town he i mean your honor is right in the sense if he did not  was present enough to make an objection to the process in this is the problem that we have here that my client was unable to present his asylum case because his lawyer with judge if you look at the context that a whole in i can give you the cite for the record there was this whole issue at the time the immigration court was under deadlines so congress thirty years was a deadline all the cases were be round to the court they had brought in outside judges  prejudice in the absence of any allegation as to what that evidence would be the record garrett is how many state department country condition reports against human rights watch articles amnesty international articles that show that you know mexico is relevant but given this record that my client forms a particular social group of people who would be targeted for ransom and kidnapping he had a son who died and he received a wrongful death settlement and this would be a case very similar to the  filipino ransom cases that this court has ruled on you want to say fine for rebuttal i think we have the essence of your point you think it's structural or that your coin does have a claim on the merits but if good morning good morning your honour's my name is julie iver senator and i represent the united states attorney general you know i've been doing this for fifteen years and for about the last what twelve years judge thomas we've been the i'm not sure how you pronounce it you're he's still an immigration judge i believe he is an immigration judge in new york and at the time he was detailed to san francisco years denial rate is ninety five point three percent forty points higher than the national average i think there's a lot of different considerations that go into what the grant and denial rate are for each particular judge but i think you your honor raise a good point the russians were talking grant or deny right we're just talking raw statistics what considerations are you talking and then you have the variations on this i'm familiar with the specifics in san francisco and in new york and the grant rights or a lot higher specifics but i think your honor you raise a good point that what are the merits of this particular case and this case is about whether or not the motion for a continuance was denied  reasonably denied and here i think that there was no good cause shown mr martinez applied for asylum basically because he feared that he would not have a job in mexico that's what his asylum application says he says i fear i won't be able to find a former counsel for petitioner said that he received it about twenty three days prior to the advanced hearing date he did not file a motion to continue your honor no that's not correct on july twenty first he filed a motion to withdraw his counsel he said that the relationship between his client and him had basically broke down and that his client also devotion to continue or the motion to withdraw the motion because when he was informed the morning of the hearing it was filed at three fifteen pm two days before the hearing and the morning of the hearing he received a telephone call that said that he was that the motion was being denied and then it appears that the immigration court made accommodations to mr mayock who was mr martinez his attorney to ha another in your honor in his motion to continue he said that he would be in reno the day before the hearing for mr martinez and he did not really elaborate he did not say that he would be out  unable to put two up here the day of the hearing and also you will notice in a motion to withdraw that basically he doesn't put forth any good cause why he couldn't appear other than his vacation and he said that he would not be able to prepare such a complex case for cancellation of removal and asylum even though this asylum thing had been pending for six years and actually it's what claim that he was not prepared to go forward on was six years old and the cancellation claim which there was never a qualifying relative but the cancellation plan had been pending since one thousand nine hundred eight so to what extent he was not prepared to go forward i am not well if you're not prepared i'm going to proceed with this without an attorney right you know that's not exactly correct on how i read the record he says are you prepared he does  opportunity to present and to listen to testimony on the asylum claim and the attorney said that he was not prepared to go forward but interestingly enough he was able to go forward to qualify him for voluntary departure to qualify for volunt he never asked the petitioners ok here's where we are i denied the motion to continue the immigration proceeding is going to go forward with or without your client's participation are you prepared to go represented i believe that his attorney was still representing him if you look at the voluntary departure qualification that it's his attorney that is asking him the question whether or not he qualify voluntary departure something still participating in the immigration judge asked the lawyers on the telephone i can't imagine this would happen but if it did happen you have any comments on bail is the lawyer supposed to sit there and not say a word or is he supposed to try to help out the c honor he's supposed to try to help out the client i think but here he could have done that and he could he was not prepared the attorney was not prepared there's never been an ineffective assistance made in the six years subsequent to the hearing and further even if this court finds that he was deprived of a full and fair hearing and a reasonable opportunity to present evidence he has been no prejudice established because he's no point shown are put forth what he would have proffered what testimony he would coleman are your honor in common are the alien actually put forth what he would have testified to he didn't give the exact details but he said if i had had the opportunity if i hadn't had kind of testimony cut off i would have rule one and then why don't you