a one term permanent resident of the united states who was brought here at six years old became a permanent resident while still a child he was raised and lives in south central los angeles think age of fourteen he became involved in any gang and i think age of sixteen while walking down the street three men got out of a car and accosted him one of them had a weapon he wrestled with the man the weapon when one of the men drove away and one of them subsequently died from that gun shot  there any circuit is ruled in the manner that you are urging there is no circuit that's ruled in this manner however the board of immigration appeals has ruled that foreign convictions are to be accorded the federal definition so i'm not sure i see where that's that's very relevance or well it's relative and if the person is subject to it to a prosecution in a state and as i understand least the first circuit rule the rule is to look to how the state treated it and that there does not exist a separate federal standard that would somehow trump the treatment is provided by the state that actually conducted the prosecution well idea is that he was a minor at the time if you look at the congressional history of the f j d a it was to provide a wade in nearly rate situation for juvenile delinquents well it's obviously if you're treated as a juvenile then it's not a conviction but in california if you're tried as an adult the issue is whether that's a conviction as defined for immigration purposes and in california if your child is an adult it basically is treated as a conviction for all of the other purposes whether you know you've got you know prior and things along those lines right so you have to be able to show this is not a conviction and we also have the lieutenant doris case which deals with first time drug offenders that are found that if the conviction would have been treated under the federal situation they would qualify for federal first offender relief that it can't be used as a conviction and we're arguing that the same situation should apply here now what's interesting is the board of immigration appeals does it not in its decision say he's not eligible for adjustment statutorily they well and if he is eligible for adjustment under our argument then he's not then he's not required to show those heightened standards because he no longer has a but the issue here your honor is the motion to remit and was made and the board's ruling is that he can't he can't show heightened discretionary factors there is no ruling on the law at the same time when we look at the immigration judges conduct during the hearings the immigration judge denies a continuance to his attorney to file that adjustment application and ultimately denies to twelve c relief because he fathered an illegitimate child that's the sole reason if you look in the a continuance because for daughter was ill and the immigration judge states something to the effect of i know a lot about six children would you like a would you like me to recuse a trial court judge you know yes the judge immigration judge appears to have become unhappy perhaps even angry but i mean if you look at that dialogue it says don't tell me about six children i'm  write volumes about it i know you could that's why i thought you'd have some empathy here in then you know as honest as you know you have an attitude about this case you know that's a pretty direct challenge to the authorities of the trial judg this matter in you know there's the unfortunate comment about well you know all recuse myself yeah go ahead i mean i'm not sure that shows a denial of due process as much as is to people who are verbal the sparring well when you look at the decision and you look you know there is when you look at the decision and you look at the actual reason for the denial that's where you can see the denial of due process there's and we're not my name is jennifer pay is not about of the respondent united states attorney general position or in this case does not dispute that he was convicted as an adult under california state law for the crime of voluntary manslaughter remove ability is an aggravated felony it is claimed that although he was tried and convicted as an adult under california state law that somehow the immigration judge the board in this court should consider him as having been convicted circuit which arises that it's sentencing guidelines and that is united states versus perra well i guess my point is that i don't think that he's not out to lunch making the argument when there isn't you know there isn't controlling precedent in the circuit well no but but but the two courts that i have found to have considered the issue of both recognize that there's absolutely no basis for immigration officials to second guess criminal judgment of the state courts the california state court made a determination based on the nature of his crime to try and convict him as an adult and there's nothing in the i in a and there's certainly nothing in the federal juvenile delinquen a constitutional matter in fact certainly the immigration courts are required to give in this court to give full faith and credit to a determination of a state court in criminal proceedings that an individual should be tried as an adult as for the other use determination that the s j d a the federal juvenile delinquency actually apply to foreign convictions those there were policy justifications behind that and there was a concern that foreign countries could perhaps treat juveniles more harshly than they would be treated under the laws of united states and so to avoid potential problems that individuals who were convicted under a foreign law when they were under eighteen would be treated as juveniles under the federal standard but those deductions turn doesn't apply when an individual was convicted under a state of the united states the same concerns about what i believe one of the cases was cuba what the exercise of discretion and that was the basis for denying the motion to re and of course that discretionary determination is not subject to review and although petitioner says that he could have submitted more evidence in support of his adjustment application he said and that relying upon the evidence submitted in of the immigration judge was somehow unfair he can show prejudice because he hasn't offered any suggestion of what additional evidence he would have submitted that was not fully discussed during a hearing for the immigration judge and to make out a  violation you have to show prejudice and prejudice requires some showing of what additional evidence you would have to admit it it's not enough to simply say there was other evidence out there it could have som that was relevant to the determinant that was relevant for her germination and then i think you have to look at her final decision and in her final decision she lays out the standard for two twelve zero at least she fully discuss this all of the equities in the case and she focuses on the well you know even if she were going it was there is you know i've had about enough of you you're on my last nerve and i'd be happy to get rid of this case and then you take a break and you kind of take a few breaths and he kind of go well you know i'm going to hear this case even assuming just that somehow that affected her ultimate disposition of the case and i think her ultimate decision so that she considered all the factors she weighed them and she concluded that his conviction outweighed any positive equities and she and she noted that there weren't very many positive equities in her in her opinion in his case that she's entitled to do that based on the evidence that she considered a discussion just from a nation that's not subject to additional review the other question is whether he can somehow show prejudice from this one comment made by the immigration judge and mary has to show that somehow what she did affected the outcome of his  all you know you have to there are certain things you have to recuse yourself on but you also have a duty to hear those cases which you're not prejudiced on so it's for example i can't come to court and say oh this is a really hard case i don't want to do it because i don't want to do the work or anything like that that's not a good basis for recusal but then on the other hand there are situations where say you have a financial industry you know there are there are automatic disqualification issues i mean i do only thing i would say with respect  that in her decision she actually dresses you know the whole recusal issue and i believe she explains that she felt that you know ultimate whatever she might have said initially she ultimately felt that she wasn't biased in that she couldn't render a fair opinion and modulation system implanted in his back there's no discussion of that in the immigration judge's decision or any medical evidence in his decision and the decision prejudice clearly comes out when the glory then says that that looking at the favorable and unfavorable factors it would deny if it doesn't make sense now is the it is a problem of two process and if you we believe if you look at this decision if you look at the immigration judge's decision and then look back at the reasons