case is currently stage and then a lot of other proceedings are happening in parallel but my question is is there another case is there another case in this court issue in this case but this case illustrates if ever there was one is that the sort of actual to have a bond hearing and even the number of bond hearing that a civil  receives is no guarantee of the attic with the the proceedings and if that's in it what you just said is an important point so what what exactly is the  constitutional protection that you say the due process clause requires beyond having the periodic hearings an opportunity to be heard it said what exactly is it and where does it come from so it  comes from the line of cases that you know this court has refused has referred to as having dealt with in a piecemeal fashion i believe that's the word that the court used and a adequate bond hearing but in saying the court added specifically and these words and the standard was not chosen haphazardly that the government must choose must prove by clear and convincing evidence addressed in the in the ramos case which comes from the northern district is whether it's enough to simply announce the standard righted in the bomb and bond memorandum or whether  the immigration judge must apply the standard correctly and that and that really well but now that question whether the standard is applied correctly that seems to go straight to what congress has said we do not have jurisdiction over in the statute which is the the weighing of the discretionary judgment so once we have all the procedures in place and we have the standards the substantive application are you saying that the statute is in which the immigrated you were asked what you said that we get to review whether or not and the constitution requires that we review whether or not the immigration judge applied all the standards correctly that seems precisely what the statute says we cannot do now how do you put those two together is a statute on comes true sure no it's not unconstitutional in fact as the supreme court recently stated in the case which granted is written was related to a different set of statute but it said that the application of the legal standard to undisputed or factor it's a legal conclusion and it is a long case and that the proceedings were very long that behavior proceedings were took eight months in and of themselves but in a nutshell what the last bond memorandum counselor me interrupt you're just gotten to the point where i'm saying you're trying to whip saul this court because you've got an idea who has said no i'm here before us so why should we even begin to answer your question until we see what the board does and that proceeding because in that way if they grant that then if i do apologize your honor i'm not i wasn't aware that my colleagues were appearing late video today but for me it's a personal circumstance regarding the logistics and my family the family set up in my house and my  today but to complicate things a little bit more mr de kalb is also a member of the fry hot and the roman classes of the as a future of alonso detainees that are before this court so the way i like to frame it is that there are three strains in this affecting this particular issue before this court now and at this moment and crime there is no life case or controversy because mr de costa is outside of the knot and i don't think in this court yet i think that litigation is still going in cd count your honor and i can provide a clear answer that well but you know but no if the order is there and it's not been appealed i mean i understand you may get to a point the merits where his status may change but we have an appeal from a bond you know which is emperor the obviously a temporary arrangement that he didn't get bond and now he has temporary freedom from detention which seems indefinite i don't understand now why there's a case of controversy left here the government agrees that at this moment in time there is no case o controversy here but because there are those appeals pending why did you guys draw why did you withdraw the motion if there's no if you don't actually have something trying to put him back in custody under the un do the separate order that released him that that would have prevented this case from being moved but you don't seem to have that when you know where all these parallel cases regarding the cole that litigation and the the continuum of possible result that may come from to be a order on the merits there is that still that sliver of crime that hearing again it was that change circumstance he would also get a great hot custody redetermination person went to the preliminary injunction that is currently in place and for a hot so that would be another case of the the only there's only a light possibility that this case may be kept alive and the only thing would be if several cases align and mr dacre office picked up the several things that must happen at the same time in order for mr de costa but even if satellite wins even if that happens you need a new bond hearing this is circumstances would be totally different and then that would get review this order is just gone because he got released from custody and you didn't do you can show that order would have made this order then come back that that is correct your back right just but he became part of a class that was that field he became all of these on and was already released by this order so what's your assessment right i mean there's looking at it through through through that point the case is so but to the extent that he still he still falls under all the other order then there is that possibility whenever the status of the other litigation that impacts this case your constitutional i suppose violent action that is correct that is still pending in the central district of california so in regards to whether there is any constitutional question for this panel to so there's not because he's part of that go to the very narrow merits of this case the judge's decision in the immigration judge's decision was a discretionary decision and the record is replete with evidence of how the judge weight states his long term marriage to a us citizen wife and all of the all of the other positive factors but at the end of the day the immigration judge assigned weight to each of the factors and concluded that that is i believe those were raised asked in the hearing after the hearing that is being appealed now as the court noted he did have a hearing after that and that is when he submitted the acceptance to the greenleaf's over the evidence that he submitted was insufficient insufficiently detailed for him to really have approved his change in circumstances but that is not something that that is something that happened after result has been the same and quibble is with the weight that those decision makers have assigned to the evidence that has provided that that was provided for were full of other arguments and change immigration judge was aware of the time that he had been in the tension and noticed so in her during the hearing in the transcript but duration alone does not violate due process where an individual has received the procedural protections in the form of regular bond hearing the duration of detention it's not a factor that the judge should take into consideration under the d i precedence in the matter of the era which there's no and in terms of the the due process is he's received he's received the bond hearing he's received the opportunity to review those bond these of the the fact that he's had and continues to have the opportunities to have a hearing percents any changed circumstances and have those being reviewed by the b i all right thank you very much  right and so i know that there's a lot of procedural stuff going on right now and i don't want to use of all my time i will say this to try to clarify the class action lawsuit roman hernandez basically high speed all of the transparent process for the if he were picked up again then wouldn't he get another bond hearing at that point so that your honor that brings me to the more substantive point that was that was just raised by the government this is an detention and the remoteness in time of the allegedly you know dangerous conduct is not taken into consideration it's extremely problematical because unlike in for example the prison system that's an extremely impart rections that's precisely the point i'm making your honor is that the immigration courts were not designed and they're not set up to deal with these sorts of issues the criminal justice system is what deals with criminal behavior and that's why the immigration court should show deference to the criminal court when the criminal court sentences somebody to probation then they've assessed that person's dangerousness and punish them accordingly and so to sort of transform a period of probation into the equivalent of a felony prison sentence  is i don't have words for it it's unconstitutional it should shock the conscience and then he is the illustration of that oh hey thank you