thank you and good morning may it please the court this is karen than us and for petitioner mr patrick out and also on a separate line is my colleague mr alexander berchtold i would like to thank the court for permitting our participation in the proceed thank you thank you the idea and maybe i a deny mr couch adjustment of status on the finding that his crime of calling in multiple bomb threats to his former airline employer was quote gain juris i would like to briefly note that the government uses in its briefing the term violent and dangerous but there was an explicit finding in this case that this crime was not violent  that a are sixty six dollars the only issue is whether it was dangerous as to danger this case is about two things st the agency relied on quote evacuate the word evacuate as used in the plea agreement however there are no facts in the record as to what the word evacuate meant in the specific context of this crime so just for example there's no facts in the record based on the plea agreement separate from the hearing but based on the plea agreement which is solely relied on by the government and was solely relied on by the agency triggers the high school so the court does not have jurisdiction to review the discretionary determination however the court does have jurisdiction to review constitutional and legal error in this case those both the constitutional issue of th amendment due process right is raised because the decision was based and so in order to exhaust they issue must be raised and the b i addressed whether the heightened standard should apply on the merits it is not clause that the did not consider evidence for lack of a better way of saying it did you lay that argument not the words due process that argument anywhere in your brief i j there was questions about challenging the heightened discretionary standard and when the case was brought there was the i d f decision where it looked at the merits of that issue specifically addressed the merits of the issue and mr cow made it clear at the time to the i a e a that it was challenging the heightened standards so and it's clear from the record that this is entirely based plea agreement as being the basis on which the finding was made now before someone asked me another question if it's ok with the court i would like to turn it to mr  very well thank you due process because they consider you didn't consider certain facts but what's the difference between now and really asking us to say this is in error and the i j a and be abused their discretion by doing what you're saying by looking at facts that didn't exist or vi weighing facts that didn't exist or not considering facts that sounds like an abuse of discretion argument to me so explain to me in a difference maybe i can jump in and just secure your view is that the facts underlying the conviction must themselves involve danger go tensional for danger because i guess i thought that's how the agency viewed it  answer whether the primary thing in particular mr howe had knowledge of the airlines procedures and knew that there would be no haneke or emotional distress because the passengers instead of looking at relevant facts the agents the crew and in france so it looked at the potential and this is getting close to creating a generic version of the fact that any bomb threats can be dangerous if you look at the the executive branch has determined in the discretion of for did it by congress that the petitioner in this case as committed a dangerous crime and therefore should not have his status adjusted petitioner cannot challenge as determination directly so he reframes it is a violation constitutional due process rights your use of the board an immigration judge denied him due process by not considering a handful of soul searching statements that he presented in oral testimony before the immigration judge but there's no basis for any argument immigration court did not consider the evidence and the testimony they presented only that it didn't find it sufficient to rule in his favor the judge heard and summarize the evidence and there's only one issue for which it could have been considered and that is the issue of the adjustment of status determined action if additional scraps than every immigration judge in every case would have to indicate every piece of evidence that they consider every issue even if they find it not roll in or probative to prevent this kind of challenge as real challenge in this case is instead of how the evidence was weight and is really an intent to a racist plea agreement and the natural consequences of that the europeans because this court has no jurisdiction to review discretionary determination s it enough that the specific facts underline a conviction raise the potential for danger or does there have to be actual putting of folks in danger in order for a war crime to quote we are the  only thing that needs to happen is that the court needs to consider the circumstances of the crime and that's that is what needs to be considered i don't know that courts are going to n z extreme death because it is in fact a discretionary determination and parsing carefully what exactly a court would mean when it finds those things would be something that this can't do but what has to happen is it considers the circumstances of the crime and that's exactly what happened here counsel has indicated that you know perhaps you're right i think that that would be a n word difficult case but this is ultimately discretionary determination trying to really the only types of things there are constitutional or legal you can look at the brief the headings make clear that that's what they're raising here that the evidence was not considered and that's a very different case then if there was evidence here on a specific issue that and it worked then said we  consider it but we think it's not you know potentially relevant or important that would be the wane of the evidence and that is something related to the court can't get into the legal standard is that he considers the circumstances of the crime and if  from the facts in the plea agreement that that didn't happen that what happened was an evacuation and that put people in danger of course and including fact finders are allowed to me reasonable and inference is that are based on reason and common sense obviously nothing like that happening here there's no suggestion that the immigration judge was you know asleep or wasn't paying attention to the evidence the immigration judge that summarized it in his opinion the board specifically said that it considered it but nevertheless did not find it relevant obviously did immigration judge before in its opinion what evidence is found to be relevant and probative i think their argument is i understand it really just it really does focus on the word evacuees and what they say is that we can imagine two very different scenarios in which that of action evacuation played out one in which it would be quite dangerous you know the panic that there's announcement there's a bomb on the plane get off and everybody you know storms off people are trampled obviously that not scenario the defense would be dangerous i think what they're saying is that we don't have any indication that that's how i played out and at least if you were to credit the petitioner's testimony he thinks that there's reason to believe that it played out in exactly the opposite way given his knowledge of how these sorts of incidents are handled by the airline it would have been all calm and people would have just maybe not even been told that there was a bomb and that's why you're needing to do it so i guess i understand their argument to say that to be that there needs to be something more than just speculation on the or that a crime unfolded in a particular way when there's no actual concrete evidence i would say then what they're raising now on this argument not in the greeves is really a challenge to the and it could create danger and also pulling law enforcement away from their other duties eight separate occasions to try to deal with this also creates a danger of increased danger to the community when the law enforcement can be responding to other things  was relevant to the specific claims in that case for every claim and that's certainly not with the law requires it would be incredible burden it's not how anywhere operates it's not a standard here and there's no basis in record whatsoever for the inclusion of the immigration judge and the matter response require that the agency consider this probative evidence furthermore if we're in situation where the agency can simply draw inferences from you thank you thank you both for to both of petitioner's counsel for being willing to accept this case through our course pro bono program we are very grateful for your willingness to do that and we