MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
unable to answer the question with any form last and even but he did that dates and confuse that day in a way that he was not consistent with somebody who was telling a story about what really happened to him credible the next question is if he's found credible whether or not he has not only of demonstrating that he was persecuted or harmed in the past but he also bears the burden of showing who years and in the context of this case his association and political involvement on account of the alley down man or  political organization the edwards credibility finding in this case specifically went to the issue surrounding why petitioner became involved and how he was involved with ali man now when he testified members of other religious communities further on it's that applicants frequently provide little information on i five eighty nine that's the asylum application about their education occupation or family this may be an indication that they are not from the  are providing as little information as possible in order to circumvent credibility issues the point of that that is if you take that information back to the credibility finding the immigration judge has this information which is provided by the state just a minute to clarify you mentioned one hundred percent of the claims were fraudulent i think i want to make sure that we're honest same page on that one my understanding of that paragraph in the reporting is that one hundred percent of the plans from new delhi  steve and the state department it's a very difficult position that they're in that means that individuals you know who have credible claims are entitled to asylum however the government looks at these claims and in some cases they're not supported when she speaks specifically about the witnesses the meaner and then talks about the fact that she did not find him credible in part because he was unable to answer of or heat of why did any any to give any answers there is no such record maybe i'm reading too much into what she said there but it just seems to me that when the judge who looked at the witness is saying i was
fruit too hot and we've got fifteen different competitive teams we're having a blast down here at the farmer thank you winners we will send you the checks in the mail first place they will receive it they traveling trophy new holland brewing company
of the deal filed to the board and i don't see anywhere in there that ineffective assistance of counsel is listed as an issue to be presented to the board perhaps you could help me understand and at that time case although i don't have all the record of what happened the record of it is that essentially the same thing happened there and it doesn't as far as i remember don't know that maybe you brought this up how many times before that you brought it up twice before the immigration judge met those those exact outlines a chance to respond to a complaint from the from the client he responded by making a motion reopen the next day so yes i the waiver of her appearance which was within the discretion of the judge he really was shown she didn't show good reason she couldn't get a good reason because she had no idea why her client wasn't there it was only afterwards that she began to investigate and we didn't even know malpractise by lawyers but this particular firm has a pretty good reputation of doing things pretty much according to hoyle so then they make a mistake in this case they come in the next day and say we goofed they that you read the paper today cast that you know just rule that the united states violates international law and these cases involving mexican or they just don't respond to the government the new immigration judge quite often will not respond to a motion you can also file that with the district director for deportation
it is determined based upon demand by the whole i need it there yes so it's it's contingent on to meet for a or the statute of limitations to ba you know at the time  hand with the same for mandy that they are with your bills of exchange
and you know and well i think the closest case and then he has your honor is the hitter case which just generically says that an arbitration award can be an ar has certain expectations based on that pledge of bargaining agreements congress intended through that are lead elem are a by analogy that that all labor law uniform in this regard and so when an employe union sit down together and bargain over terms of a collective bargaining agreements that's that that should be left to the free play of economic power between those two entities and so while it's true that employee that has a just cause provision in an individual contract that would be afforded remedies under the washington state statute that employee would not be entitled to all the benefits of the other benefits when an employer has to down with the union and bargains over certain terms the idea is that the employer and the union can expect some sort of consistency in how that agreement should be interpreted and what their rights and obligations and
kitchener's medical condition it would be unlikely to yield the significant improvement dr miller further elaborated that there was no medical treatment that would return the teacher to four harun this included a potential
that definition each of them is st and foremost and i access the vice the question here is not whether there is or is not a usability element or aspect in this definition of access to vice and counterfeit and on authorized access to lies the question is really what is its need and what is its scope the literal language of the statute that is incorporated expressway by the guideline not supported by the statute defined that each and every and two thousand five hundred and eighty dollars entrants on government exhibit one constituted unauthorized become access device they were asked if the access devices were thirty five years old and numbers were useless that they qualify under their definition the government said no but why why wouldn't the way that handle that be just to make that relevant to the intention of the user in other words for the intended loss provision of the law still has to be intended and you might say if he has a thirty five year old number because he was doing this for thirty five years and sold at that point that wouldn't be part of his intended scheme but it wouldn't necessarily mean the numbers don't qualify for purposes of the statute as an access to vice because it's the type of thing you or you could use to get access or whether he intended any loss from a rope that would just be evidence of that kind of show there was no it was here but if it didn't put so but in a case in which you posit the extreme case of this thirty five years old it cetera well that could be put forward as evidence to show what his actual intentions were with respect to the law well thought out wrong if you knew i mean you have to show know that i think  and if nobody is saying that the def i thought that was in the statute contemplates one of the things that can be an access device is something that which is impossible to use to get the  a person myself with quite another well this will have no impact on which side might prevail in either of those cases today but on behalf of the court i'd like to thank you for all your years of service to the court you have always represented you at least every number on that list is at least what we would send more likely than not enough so i thought they got one title white because it was taken from a skimming device because it was day a statement from the person who held the card show that it was an act of account but all you have to hypotheticals here that you don't even know it says american express but how these were not just made up numbers that they were numbers that correlated to a bank account but since there was no evidence that they could be used they were no good but the consequence of that would be it seems fair to read this case as a case in which
concrete they provide of the water they deliver to the site there are numerous drivers but more than that they actually instead of putting the concrete in a pop or off to the side and then concrete workers taking the concrete and putting it in the pa nails and bolts which you agree are simply materials and they foolishly took their big heavy trucks everywhere and made the same rocks i guess i don't understand that the  site that was well chops job to decide how they wanted the concrete delivered to the site so they wanted a pumper and didn't based on configuration of the site and didn't want trucks driving on the site and they could have arranged to have  in the case of the general contractor that the at the sub actually does work it does finishes the product and does part of the mean contract for example of a general contractor who hires a plumber to put in the plumbing system he doesn't do any of  and the reason is that it's a material means because just material he's pine he's not doing any lower he's not preparing the surface he's not travelling the concrete he's not deciding what kind of concrete goes in this particular project he's simply delivering the concrete that all chopped water he's placing exactly where wall chart wanted to be placed and then wall shop has a responsibility once the concrete is there to finish it off the tr so i am gathering from the court's comments that it may be embarked on a kind of a slippery slope here this is really analogous i believe where well yes this this is really analogous i believe to a situation where let's say a painting contractor goes to a home depot and purchases paint to put on a building and some walls pay the painting some contractor probably did the drywall and the underlayment texters well they get the they get the paint from home depot home depot as you know has rows and gallons of white paint the white paint is then turned into a color based on the painting you know to a particular pad that was going to be pork then wall chop employees directed the shoot from the trucks in other words they were in control of the chute when the port was being made they're the ones who placed the concrete who actually respectfully disagree with that appears in this case in this case the concrete trucks are the paint cans the driver of the concrete trunk truck in the truck when the poor is actually taking place this is the  if that is an issue on first montrose the application of the of the continuing property loss theory and whether or not that would be applied here and my suggestion is that should be applied here with a direction on the aft additionally  reliant on it was a decision that matters to be made by the district court judge no however the guidance of this court certainly is appreciated because marc lamont was principal in the first party situation has previously been adopted by
example that the burden of proof is on the government to prove that every step they take is appropriate so he has made a decision in the context of this man that the burden should be on the party seeking to
indicate the arguments that we've put forward in this petition for review going to no longer appear to be tenable because of cases that have been issued by this court during the pendency of the petition for review so i honestly in good faith and cannot put forward an argument that this petition for review should be granted i am concerned though with regard to the voluntary departure that was granted by the board of immigration appeals this petition for review was just it was filed in many of two thousand and two based on a board of immigration appeals order if you can april eleventh two thousand and two in march of this year this court decision and in march of this year and they were able to hustle down to the courthouse and file a motion to get a voluntary departure period the old henry opinion explicitly does not address what happens when the voluntary departure period was set to expire that they filed a petition for review and at that time this petition for review arguably had some merit to it it's only because of intervening decisions on the merits of this petition that it's become untenable it's not a frivolous petition for review it's simply that decision well i would like the court to consider with supplemental briefing if you find it appropriate whether the petitioners in this case and then make use of the period of voluntary departure granted to them by the board in light of the fact that when they filed their petition the law had actually changed at the time that this petition for review was filed so the stations were on notice that if they wanted to stay of that voluntary departure period they should have filed it at the time they filed the petition for review so you would oppose on those ground of something that the service does without without any sort of initial i guess hurdles that someone would have to cross so i don't know that there's a particular that i could relief because they were placed in a removal proceedings they are not eligible for that relief from whatever showing they could have made extreme hardship or physical presence of they could not meet the cancellation of removal criteria which is mister unfortunately i would have to point out that in order to utilize the repapered provisions provided by the ira transitional rules you can only that's because they were not reaching an order to show cause they can't take advantage of the provisions had they been issued an order show cause they would have been eligible for suspension because they had to seven years they're not affected by the stop time rule so in either the petitioners should have filed a motion for a stay at the voluntary departure period at the time they filed the petition for review again the law of the circuit at that time was gone and the petitioners did file a motion for state
it's really about a plain mistake that was made by the immigration judge that requires reversed and that is that he made a mistake about the rights that were afforded the petitioner under the f m three that it did not allow for permanent residence in mexico that's just goes to the question of the presumption of resettlement that that's correct and you're arguing of presumption should not apply the presumption of settlement should not apply because to come back to a new car when he can leave but he just has to come back to that site to renew the card so he's not really confined there three hundred sixty five days a year even if that's correct your honor but travel in that part of mexico is difficult and the experience of the petitioner on the record and of his brother is that the cards were not necessarily recognized when they left the area so that in fact one could not presume that he could travel unimpeded throughout the country now so is it your argument that without an offer of permanent risperdal without an awful permanent residency there can be no firm resettlement my argument doesn't go that far but but he there was they were and none of those cases involved persons who were actually even living in and confined to and he was confined to the area of the camps until a year before he left the country was they were very restricted to the cancer until very shortly before he left the country so there was not a long period so well a long period of peaceful residence in the country could amount to an offer correct the court has two alternatives the court could find that substantial evidence simply does not support any finding any rational fact finder immigration judge just suspicion on a that and all of the experts testimony which is  petitioner well before he even got his s m three card which is the you know permission that allows him to travel that is so important to them i mean it's evident that he was travelling all over mexico i mean he was a representative in the refugee camps and he into another country with or while in that country received an offer of permanent resettlement now the testimony of michael smith was that starting and this is that page one seventy three that he could have been president and and figured out that maybe something would happen later that's not the test that's not what the regulation says and similarly the government's characterization of the conditions under which he lives in mexico i not borne out by the record but the government had a chance to cross examine the petitioner at its hearing there is no evidence in the record that he was traveling around the country they didn't ask him what the circumstances were under which right we really appreciate
the me think back but we met last week we went over the details of the budget very in a great lot of detail with tony and he showed us where all of if there's a deficit we can use a circuit breaker funds from last year to mean that we don't have a deficit this year that's correct and i think that projected to projection for the meeting will be thursday morning at seven thirty am at the beetroot centers while the group is preparing to finalize the design of the site and of the building in preparation for our  nineteenth of june is really going to be the final view of what will be looking out in terms of them that next phase and then also we have hired the c m at risk which is basically the ministry construction management company that will be second meeting and out they'll be presenting some potential timelines for the work and facing to the work as well on june nineteenth will be at this table which is really exciting we are really going to be seeing equipment on the site right around this their proposal or there are many factors in there like it maybe thirty years or twenty or fifteen it may alleviate part being or it may not so the way it reads it kind of gives the impression that they've resolved a lot of that issue so i don't know if there's more notes on that segment for the presentation but it would i guess i'd like to see a more comprehensive summary of that presentation in general we didn't make any decisions or no reading scripts which i just read some things in their proposal is hypothetical versus concrete like so that's how i read it percentages of simply because the operational element is called out so it seems a key piece of the design that is worth mentioning since there was a lot of slides on that particular aspect
knows to up housing market or the recent recession is coming just gone this is one of the most vibrant areas in the country right now so real estate is valuable so it's not something that's easy to buy it's really important that
the three are not too young to begin learning things like this one it gets him to get the feeling that they can do this moment to his building self confidence in her ch patient but when mother doesn't want to hear about school or dying to care about  oh can she meet this kind of temptation has she been prepared for this home after school but what about the children who have to spend the day with  piling one child being hard on the rest that's something no child can understand and this goes on week after week mother has problems with them all night i have bad news your husband's been hurt they want you to come with me dozens of little things months and years of care and patience given them by their parents have made them strong enough the problem they've met so far
has this is this is one of the cases where a delay in the process or the normal belie i mean there's been quite a change sense and a lot of his concern obviously was directed at the loss of going i understand but you say who knows what else because there was one mistake there for the whole thing it was not the whole thing that it's hard to tell from the record without that the immigration judge did seem to misunderstand the issue of the graf you know the recall notice and all of that and what would be the remedy you're asking for what should be what should we do that he fears future prosecution correct right and and there that comes back to my original question is you know we live in a dramatic country change so is that something we should just ignore  i guess i should begin again with the translation issue because that is the threshold issue always is the question is was the theory so flawed that the official was denied a reasonable chance to make its case and therefore a new hearing should be ordered you should not do what my colleague suggested which is say well the translation was for therefore we will credit the testimony as we see it on a printed page and find this person eligible for asylum wrote i say i don't understand why you waited so long as there's a declaration and whatever it says look i got this draft notice and i don't want to be sent to bosnia i don't want to be killed on the problems that i don't want to go to prison for the rest of my life secret police came to his house many many times and he then left the united states and the immigration judge had trouble crediting that for two reasons first that the teacher left his wife and daughter behind and they were subjected to the same treatment and also because he persecution till he was called back to the military and so it seems a little breach that he is jumping all of his testimony and evidence about what happened to him supposedly before he left you the slavia and he is now pinning his case almost claim that he was called back to military service because he was branded as an anti middle seven demonstrator is that this was i received a summons and it gets a bit complicated because of course the law is clear that simply having a national or are or ethnic cleansing killings and you refused to do that that is that is a persecution within within the meaning of this final stretch of difficulty as we don't have any evidence of that in this case all we have is the summons and it seems to be a regular government doctrine a document scuse me from the government saying please report back we want you back in the military and and then he received a notice that since he didn't report back as he was supposed to he has been back to the bosnian front he he did not believe that this person had been branded as an anti milosevic traitor he believed that the person had received a summons that he came to area are not clear to our office or to the board on occasion the the court has reminded back to the finder of fact and barring the introduction sometimes we've also been invited to be made to look