MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
requiring a new proceeding for the board the second issue here a fundamental problem with just this claim is probably more important in her affidavit in support of promotions reopen she doesn't there's no mention as to whether counsel is wondering correctly regarding voluntary departure i today she said that she would have advised you to advise the clients voluntarily left out of the record that would be the difference between this case offers what can be described as a domino theory for why her hair was to be excused basically that she should have performed dates you're turning to perform a series of actions or a series of circumstances should have taken place of way station a parking lot while she went in for an attempt to get a different form of relief and likely over the objections of the government because as it turned out this court determined that it did not have jurisdiction over that position for review you'd have to overcome that as well and then fit argues that she would have been successful before the war although her husband at the time was not had not been granted in a horrible week notably all five of these things relate against the first hurdle that mo absolutely no evidence that her lawyer provided such advice or that she relied on it in any way in fact you know will absolutely nothing about why she did not comply with her voluntary partial work another of the purported failures that her outlined it was those five while in the united states so i do not believe the record states explicitly that i told her to leave or not to leave but the implicit understanding she had and th remedy available and regarding the question of whether or not it's the factions that situation or a legal matter that is looked at in regard to the period of time that the voluntary departure was in a fact which we agree about  yes it's true that there was a different law in effect at the time and the life changed but there was also a factual issue interacting with the law which was that mr
that his last records had been found in he did sign a document noting that his last records were someplace and in the pri that he didn't have access to them essentially what he did it is say where i want my records i need my records he said it several different ways and what they did is they they look for his property they found his property and said doing the best he can to get information before the court and minutely his pleadings are in a model of clarity but i don't think you would expect necessarily that they're going to be he's he's mentally ill he's doing what he can and medically there are a lot of different pleadings that he's filed it's clear that he wants much if you can to convince the court that he's timely but certainly everything was before the district appellant without legal assistance or access to the little law library that citation was actually in reference to this supplemental appellants opening brief that was also probed her third i wanted first request that the appellant made for an interview which was dated july thirtieth two thousand and two that was an excerpt of record three ninety three twenty nine and the supplemental excerpts page twent and indicate that that's when he returned from out of court going out to court so given that date and that was the very first and only mention that he needed just general legal property did not state in any kind of specificity what legal documents he was missing how those legal documents created an impediment and how the president's actions equaled  state action that was in violation of the constitution our position is it's the appellant's burden just so that not only were there extraordinary circumstances beyond his control but that it wasn't due to a lack of his own some items but only through the mail i mean through the mail he's going to send a letter to the warden with the stamp on it your honor i believe that you through the same process as he's been doing with these mistreated  portion of this and that's the impossibility portion of this inquiry is that even if we were to say he was deprived of his property and still march thirteenth of two thousand and three he still had almost four months he had three three months and twenty four days in which to file his federal hevia he had already demonstrated that he could file a state hadiths which are necessarily the same  grounds he did that without legal assistance without access to the library all he would have to do is copy that form for the federal havey yes and he was able to do that in the state there's no reason why given all this form is calling a function of how much time two forty four that if there is a state created impediment would be subtracting time from here because it's a year from that state created impediment rather than looking at whether or not the state created impediment
mom so i i don't understand how it is that the commission could not go get it in a neutral risk analysis to determine whether there's something quantitative it would say that anything that happens during the course of the work regardless of the body movement whether it's walking whether it's food they've been doing whatever it might be you could make the argument
is really has really can decide it's only on the consoling with the credibility issue and one of the things for me that is striking is just this the basic consistency as to parts one is that they perceive him to be christian and they start the materials in his car and then at the same pint he was shown what he was also showing to the court that there was related to a political you know that you know there's a particular political order there and part of that is that muslims should not be create converting to christianity this is didn't believe the story about the christian material what is the what's the standard for when we hold a credibility tribulation versus when we reverse and grant really other words do you have to show context doesn't our president indicate that that standard means that we would have to say that the evidence compels the conclusion that he was credible is that right that's what the answer would be but my right that's compelled did not compel the conclusion that he's not credible because it has to do with what the record support says to the judge's decision we would have to say if the judge  activities outside of islam but but the judge doesn't really state why that would be the case and that that i would say is an improper conjecture in this persecution but but he also explained that he when he left and then came back he was not he did not really understand extent to which he was in trouble and then when he came back he found out that the authorities have been looking for him and so the course isn't of which you might accept or might not accept based on his overall demeanor  there's also the issue that as to his studying of christianity the record shows that perhaps he was not the most sincere convers in the world because he's doing this when removal proceedings were started but but actually that's not a totally correct characterization of the record on the judge's part because he testified that he had done some places while it services or religious  first page he's talking about general conditions of repression in iran he's talking about how many government how women are not treated well and only on the second or that he was stopped on the border by some guards who thought he may have been drinking and but he the crux of his fear is that he's a moderate muslim he says he's not a christian in that  then he gets they gets to the hearing and it's completely different now his sole fear is that he is that he is a question either perceived or actual and  finding christianity is the heart of this clan and whether or not he's actually christian doesn't matter for the purpose of his persecution but when the idea was talking about the authenticity of this christianity that was he told them about that that's that's that's what she said that she didn't see that as a valid grounds for fear of what he had done i think a rainy and christian church where she did not know she said basically that he can go back to iran and he doesn't be entirely credible because he had told his parents the same story they found i think yeah yes you know i think that basically what the i think like you've been speeding or he was rude to the officers and
presented evidence of an extraordinary circumstance  unable to reach him and in this quiet specifically held in a similar situation that considering contacting counsel is not enough it's insufficient to demonstrate due diligence without specific details dates and  but what this court is required is that petitioner provide specific details of due diligence instead of what happened here apparently rise that counsel current counsel was hired in january of two thousand and fourteen and requested  important point i did want to clarify but thank you thank you
was incorrect or that the question is there not something wrong with the procedure which speaks to the integrity of the quarter proceeding here whe
case because they were shareholders in a close corporation on november first twenty twelve circuit court judge thomas machines st clair county the agree with us and he found that the sheer relationship between the plaintiff expediency self interest in derogation of this duty and loyalty to the other shareholders and to the corporation the court to be implicit that people who enter into these small business enterprise and the reason you are the test that you used to make a determination as to whether or not to rid of or not are very very very similar delaware if you use a direct form  all universally are dealing with very you know despotic motions where you know there's a paucity of the record and the court is not willing to just summarily get rid of it without more makes a huge difference one way or the other because this is good in my view the textbook definition of a derivative was and once we make that determination if you find
sheriff would go out and take it usually it was ex party without notice but it would go on and take the seize the item and the party of seizing it would have to the post the bond or the person that had it would get it back by posting a return  you cannot attempt the rich over the property by contempt receipt that's all that's the only folding that is apparent in that case absolutely says money property whatever has to be with in the jurisdiction of the within the jurisdiction of the state of the court and that the answer lies in the face of every single supreme court case that tells  we have no choice in we have a tell us that is long as there is a controversy a justiciable matter and that the court has the power to he if they did but if you look at the statute that's exactly what this the action says sure the city actually says if you can't get the right you can get the money but you have to first try to get the ring it has to be returned not found and they haven't even placed three turn and not found over the matter if the if the person property can't be delivered and found in the state then we are entitled to get a judgment on the value of the property this is a circumstance where and that's clear i could satisfy my request for relief which i believe i thought the statute and it's clear from the provisions that are that are set forth there in you went up with a circumstance that that the republican process provides an option for precision of the property prior to having a hearing on the remedies for plastic that wasn't done  know again in brunswick there's nothing that indicates that this court or any court does not have jurisdiction subject matter jurisdiction do you have any suggestions
relocate especially if the government was the entity persecuting him as persecution is then presumed to be countrywide and you know oddly enough the board repeated i just mistake by saying well sorry yes what evidence do we have that this is a criminal investigation rather than a political persecution when the police have detained saying two different occasions over the course of multiple days hear you there is a distinction between individuals who are callous stanley who exercised peaceful means in terms of acquiring their separate standalone stan kasten it's the name that's been attributed to individuals who are from many times before he came to the united states and essentially about eleven months after the actual second arrest tended to show that he was not likely to be tortured they're hanging from the ceiling they torture him for three days and he says i'm not i'm not a member of the militant group and they call how can you not until there's enough evidence in the record that there's a that it was just simply the presence of being around shane darren who was his friend then why hasn't there been evidence in the record that shows that other individuals who have been in his presence been arrested that same incident from that inference you can you can determine that twenty thousand rupees and forty thousand rupees respectively and that alone shows that there was a
and i d when the government really even disputes the general preference for extending rather than no law flying benefits the problem is really the crux of the reasoning in morales santana is that put to the choice congress would choose to preserve the general rule and so how do you how to end of course that case also talks about the importance of the residency requirement how do you get around that r kathy mckinney and i represent the attorney general in the matter in this case the court to deny the consolidated patisserie view because the board acted well within its discretion in denying the petitioners and timely  ccess the motion to reopen the final administrative order of removal in this case was entered in two thousand and seven so the current motions to reopen petitioners this and that before the board are successes and timely and the motion to reopen before the board was not a vehicle to revisit his previously litigated quite petitioner had to show that he benefited from the  profit in that case was the concern of creating a difference in separate constitutional violation is the one year exception were extended to underwear and with parents rather than their parents just main rule the court also looked to congressional intent on finding that if put to the court the choice that the court determined that congress would have held that the recognition of residence in the u
achieving sexual arousal gratification in order to get in touch hours for that purpose therefore because the victim was not aroused for sexually gratified by the defendant does not
the next case on the calendar is the love that the stop and shop amend it effective january or defined benefits the mount contributed to that seven ye may i tell you what my problem is that the org humans you were making who was were also made earlier to another court and the court ruled against you and while the defendant that you are suing now is different we have limits on what we can do we cannot decide a fact question different from what we earlier court know i know you said that in view earlier case you were only asking for documents but the court said before it could decide whether you could get documents it had to decide where we were covered by the plan and to do vet if you had to decide ve issues you are putting to us now so my question is how can i when i am bound by the day i'm familiar your brief makes this point and i know you're with that change in him we will look very carefully to see if those changes as my colleague said make we have a first problem is this the same case as was brought before in we will look very carefully at your explanations as to why it is not in thank you very much for making your argument  and a piece taught i continue to what i have and they interruption in sadness we understand and we end in the argument that we should be able to take and make sure what our legal authority is today and will take all your arguments and your various and very under careful consideration thank you so much for your argument in q and i ask you and i can expect
judgments and there are several so that the police officers would have to pay the judgment first and then seek the funds what's the distinction here why why can't those funds be reached in the first instance  terminations on indemnity had been correct across the board could those fines then be reached by the federal court i believe if it had been correct and it had been final and there had so if there had been a request for an execution order in this case while the hard ok swiss pending and the district court had said i'm willing to wait for a decision from the puerto rico supreme court what would be the which in this case the municipality did not well i don't usually rely on body language but your call it shaking his head that there is no such procedure took place now are you confident in what you just said it's just though based on rather bad thinking intuition is never a good way to decide cases and i'm not about the what here but but it seems to me that the party is going to be your budget in order to pay for the judgment you're saying there is an attachment in this case well i believe i was going to suggest to you that we don't have to answer that question because there is no
doesn't take him long to decide
looking back over the briefs of the first two issues have been fairly will weaved in this particular matter but i thought that some discussion needed to be brought up regarding the third issue this particular case is whether or not the district court any objections regarding the underlying felony offenses but as a result of this he was sentenced to an additional fifteen years on the severe it's our position that there was error this particular incumbent upon the judge at that point in time that even though there were three under one felonies that had been alleged in the pre sentence report clearly the case law says you can't rely on the information soley within the precincts report that it must be verified and at the reports to prove of a burglary case and the answer came back from the courts said no you can't but unlike mr and looking at mr sharpe's case there was absolutely no information that was before the court and the the number of burglaries that were listed some might have counted some might not have but we don't know a lot about six right here burglaries i mean this guy has a pretty extensive you know he came up as a criminal history category six there's no denying that he has a significant i guess the question i think the fire i just can't be for plain error review here so where's the real harm here if if you can't represent because you don't know all that he has a legitimate basis to attack any of these prior predicates and of course the government didn't give didn't do its job and give the probation officer or the corps adequate evidence that would conclusively answer the question is it enough for you to simply say because we don't know will then play in error must we have to presume that there's prejudice here i think we do have to present the first precious because certainly the government has the burden of proof to prove up these convictions as to whether or not they'd be able to find certified copies judgements i don't know i don't know the facts no indictments were presented there was no some office of the police that took place in any of these embodies a presumption of prejudice i don't think there's specific language that was so i think it has to be looked at and applied to the facts of this particular case so there's no question as you say that fifteen you're just prejudice absolutely no obligation whatsoever at the appellate level on mr sure to stow us his substantial rights were prejudiced by what happened we have no and in that case they said it was a closed case and that and that's the case but it but on appeal the defendant has made it's possible proffer that at least one of his underlying felonies might not have been what he did he introduce it's not entirely clear from the opinion and the opinion describes that as a proffer and i would assume that the defendant described is offense and
understand this is way outside the record i'm not familiar with that case yet and this is i have to say very unusual but i see no reason or any exception my colleagues that we have least will receive what you have and cases and think that at any one point in time the doctor's going to be able to definitively state what's going to happen for the next ten fifteen twenty years and when we try to get that information from the doctors and they don't like to occurred we don't have to prove that it was it was likely that discretionary relief would have been granted is that the argument you made in your brief and had always included even for suspension of deportation the fact is that i always found relevant to the health of the child or the health of the qualifying relative so that was something that had always been considered in discretionary attorney had appeared before the judge on june twentieth two thousand and one and the immigration judge at that point and i had a request for a continuance and then he prepared to go forward on the case in august two thousand and
gun trying to get the stone as soon as possible i guess of ish i think that would i think arguably it would i think you have to look at the content of the letter the evidence you have to look at the government's response to that letter and say what did the to you in deciding what the necessary interpretation of the two thousand and two letter is here and one and the at and the silence on the government's part namely without that they weren't request to repay and the government said no it was a new bridge which seems to me cream of what normal standards for what is a continuing farm even though the up the express terms of the loan say you can prepay at any time well i think the answer is that although you're stuck for fifty years and all of our clients unfortunately are if you have a remedy which is differentiates the circumstance i believe so i believe there's other forty in this context stating that you can't rely on a continuing breach theory may have actually been addressed either i guess i put it this way that the federal claims did reject this theory and caraway suppose i thought it was just plain wrong what do i do that if your are believes it's wrong then i present one where there is nothing more than we're interested in preparing response from the government fill out these papers they hadn't gotten to the point of saying and we're not going to pay in and there is a that a number of instruction provided by the agency that says you cannot accept an actual certified check until they've gone through this whole burdensome process so by requiring them to involved will concede that it may take a few days to do that but you're still you're in the process of except that you're not saying we're not at the point of these this application process  you're saying that the system that's set up which requires that somebody fill out papers before the government will consider the application is in and of itself are we caption because the government is requiring can i ask you about this topic that i discussed with your friend on the other side of this idea which i must say i find it really strange that a provision that says you have a right to repay wrong each year that it's not a new even if it's a same rock discriminating against you for some impermissible reason how that's not a new wrong and is that a standard that's been applied in the context of contract law in terms of the differentiation between telephone where the supreme court the whole basis of the supreme court's decision was about time for performance it was specifically issuing karolyn so it wasn't fully addressed and that we have airport