miscarriage later filed the u visa application based on that crime and requested that the board of immigration appeals mantra case to the immigration court the board denied that request and its decision the board makes no reference to the factor to which its  to lay of these administrative proceedings the respondent has not shown that it remained as warranted and then they cited early b r that's it that is the entirety of the decision on this point your honor and it is our contention brevity of that decision particularly since it does not address this this primary factor in the court case law and the arguments we raise regarding the waiver is a legal error that  saying immigration court should apply multi factor test that the decision should turn primarily on the likelihood that the collateral relief will be granted and will materially affect the outcome so that about five times actually during that it does  miscarriage roach is not likely to succeed on her application i would think that question may have wondered about that question naturally because maybe underneath it all there's a question whether whatever errors occurred or prejudicial  the record as it stands shows that she did obtain that certification from the police that you need for the u visa and that you mean the guy winds up being acquitted but maybe that's not because she failed to show up to court she did go and testify against him he just was acquitted anyway which happens as happens yes ok so what you're asking for i assume is just  we would need to do if we did anything was to ask the board to do the job to really be our ands spell out for it that is correct your honor and in addition to that to also address the arguments that we made before the  departing her sons of course it likely to trigger additional grounds but in this ability by departing which would make getting a waiver to come back harder she actually has to seek permission to reapply from the attorney general if she departs under this question the purpose behind creating you can see the application the idea that congress had when they created this application was to ensure that law enforcement could provide status to individuals while they cooperated in the investigation of crimes until remove individuals while they're waiting for their you he says would undermine that purpose your honor unless there are any further questions i will reserve the rest of my time for a bottle that would be fine thank you mr kim around you know such as so senility b r you st of all the we have no signal i'm just going to say we have no signal from the board that it considers the factors that the attorney general says numerous times in this order primarily the likelihood that the collateral relief that is to say here that you know has will be granted and will materially affect the outcome of the removal proceedings so unless you think the attorney general was just wasting his breath when he says this in his order he says he consolidates three cases he mentions that he's gotten i think he said eight briefs sam there primarily so i don't see how you can just toss the primary factor out the window d and turn to the secondary factors now certainly he also says and i have no reason to think this is in any way problematic good cause also may not exist when the person hasn't demonstrated diligence and so on g h s opposes but i don't see how the board has done its job by ignoring the primary two factors yes your honor no away b r is pertinent to this case but i wouldn't say it's all perfectly or strictly analogous now what's not so i'm going about it it's whatever i may be supposing about this isn't the point the question is what did the board think the board omits the two primary factors why shouldn't we send this back to them and say please follow l procedural factors which are significant in this case are such that the outweigh all the other role but that's not what it says it says considering all relevant factors including and then it lists the things that it included it doesn't say it you know and i actually think if the sentence you propose had been there or if the board said we've considered the prima fashion eligibility we've considered the material effect but in this case we think that the factors outweigh those or we think that there isn't a good chance of success or if it if you'd like given like a glimmer into its thinking about that and i would think well you know you referred defer to the board that's that's all you have coming to you but we don't have that but i would also know that the procedural posture is different from a levy are now this in this case it's not the i j a denying a continuance at the board declining to opportunity to apprised the judge of the fact that she had filed a petition for you if you remember what happened to her she thinks that she has until december before they've scheduled her hearing in december and then all the sudden just blam she finds out the hearings three days later in october for the convenience of this immigration judge who's moving you know and so she's got to scramble people have reliance interests and court date so i imagine if we had suddenly changed your court date and made it be true two weeks earlier you would have had to scramble yourself to accommodate that so i don't think on this very specific record you can blame her for lack of diligence she gets it in what she thinks is two months early you know but but it turns out to be not two months early it turns out she can't get the certified things until a day or so after this suddenly had the idea were already in conversation about a possible new following used to titian and in fact the i think you have to do a lot of things just got to bring your petition together you've got to get that law enforcement certification the government surely doesn't want people  filing ill founded or frivolous u v s course assertions or so and so she proceeds to put all of this together  i filed it on october th two thousand and seventeen but that's literally days before the immigration judge for reasons having nothing to do with her it was not her lack of diligence that caused that day to happen it was the convenience of the government while you're on if you look at the transcripts of all the hearings that took place before the gratian judge immigration judge was exceedingly solicitous in the comedy when it came to the possibility of following us petition as early as but that is mean that i would consider that an arse this only goes to the diligence factory solve my problem of the end of the board's complete ignorance of the two factors the attorney general stresses wrote so i mean i as soon as possible and that if you do so i would consider a continuance in that particular case now sheep advise evolution does that she would do this along before now granted there was a changing of the day because the idea was are issued on october twenty two thousand and seventeen which is the exact day of the hearing as rescheduled now they would have been two months early if the december th date it held  boundaries of the government's own delay that's a problematic position as well how is she supposed to make the government speed up but the question does remain as to why she failed to tell the i d that she had filed so you can petition has she actually given the judge notice of that and he very well may have considered the possibility of a continuance and we would be in this particular posture well that he could have said promises promises she didn't have to verify you know certified copies yet  applications that are likely to succeed are unlikely to be filed privilege or a reason when the application is likely to succeed the foreign national has no reason to delay in fact he generally would prefer it if the dilatory in nature are not supported by the record nor are these mentioned in the board's decision there are a lot of reasons why a police department may not issue a certification right away they may have too many to go through they may be waiting to see if the foreign national cooperates the date of the certification alone is not an indication that any action we took was dilatory in nature further the government notes in the record that  the the immigration judge had discussed the yes application with the petitioners but in the final hearing date going to your point your honor about the receipt notices the immigration judge actually explicitly told petition are that any motion to