morning and welcome to the fourth circuit you know we're ready to hear are you in on our first case korea us versus holder i hope i pronounced his name correctly mr riviera violent act like getting in a car and hearing someone and right  when the war has said this gratian to wait factors yes they do have a discretion to wait factors but if they going to reject the fact findings of the immigration judge it has to break based on a different the case which is the immigration judge is better prepare to make those frank write ins so i believe that because the immigration judges here witnesses as to process of weighing these factors now you you're making an argument also regarding the group supervisor right in the notice to appear correct those whose burden is  at the numbers of persons out the rice to signed these documents group supervised so it's not one of them then i guess what's hanging me what i'm concerned about i r two point one says that the secretary of the department of homeland security can delegate and essentially read delegate by regulation directive memorandum or other me the concept of burden shifting in terms of sebelius case that says that there's a presumption of regularity that we have to assume that the public officials complied with their regulations and you're saying once they showed a least the bore has a proper notice of appeal in file but any issue has been left out and the bore the courts have found that they they they can look at any should die has not been cited good morning your honor my name is bernard jessop i represent the attorney general of the united states in this case the petitioner asked the court to overturn a final order of the board of immigration appeals denying as a matter of discretion is application for of relief under section one to two nine b which is the section that deals with cancellation of removal in this case prompted no review the board after weighing both positive and negative equities in the case the immigration judge unfounded fisher did not merit cancellation of removal as a matter of discretion generally courts lack jurisdiction to review any of these types of findings unless the petitioner can show that there is a constitutional issue or there's a question of law which the petitioner cannot do in this case petitioners attempting by saying he's raising any question of law that the board ignored the positive factors and relied simply on the negative factors end run around the jurisdictional bar however it's clear from a cursory reading of the board's review that it did consider the positive factors as well as nec the factors and just determined in the exercise of its discretion that the negative factors are the government contends that the notice of appeal and the notice to appear are legal issues that this court does have the jurisdiction to hear in the fourth circuit had i believe has a precedent on that however   i do not know exactly what a group supervisor is but under the regulations there are forty one different types of officers who have the authority to issue and those who appear including field suit field operations supervisors special operations supervisors supervisory border patrol agents supervisory district adjudication officers supervisory asylum officers supervisory special agents use the term group supervisor lowen list of forty one it does not however there is a catch all provision as george kennan pointed out that the secretary of homeland security may enter this discretion delegate any authority to any official officer or employee of the department of homeland security it's the petitioners burden in this case to try and overcome the presumption of regularity and i contend the government contends that the burden is very high and that is that that he's saying that he showed that the person who signed the n t a wasn't on the list in that category and that so he did meet his burden of going forward on the presumption of regularity and at some time it kicks in upon the government to show you out that this was valid the government because really and i think what he what what's underlying his position is that you know you the government's in a position to say who this person is to say what this person's role was you know he so but in any event he would also have to show that there's some form of prejudice when you have it but nobody in this whole room apparently knows who group supervisors what that category is yet we're going to harm his dread that that it gives me a little bit of discomfort but and the government contend that he still would have to show some sort of prejudice  i reported eleventh circuit case it held that even if the n t wasn't valid and he wasn't valid the petitioner was not prejudiced because the decision deny cancellation but the discretionary decision not subject to do sure view and he didn't show that was i do not know how how that person was delegated i would contend that the presumption of regularity assumes the government officials are doing their jobs and that in any event the petitioner knowledge service of the prejudice and that the decision of the agency that he was contesting was a discretionary issue and he also there was no showing that somehow he was prevented from knowing what the claim against him was what the issues involved in th case where he had adequate opportunity to respond to those up and notice of the board has discretionary authority to summarily dismiss a case or to go ahead and hear the  case and under the regulations it specifically says that the board may dismiss your appeal if they cannot tell from this notice of appeal or any statements attach the notice of appeal why you are appealing because it's a discretionary it had adequate notice of what the issues were on appeal and decided to hear the case not believe that this court decision in the zama versus holder the court noted that even though the petitioner presented a cat claim cursorily in the notice to appeal that it was sufficient to afford the board an opportunity to exercise its expertise in considering the claims also i think or instructive that lynn versus the attorney general which is a third circuit case the board waived compliance with specificity requirement by choosing to address the matter on appeal and also pasha vs going solace which is a seven circuit case that stated the board could have summarily dismissed an appeal for failure to raise an issue with specificity but instead affirmed it on the merits even if the notice of appeal were deficient in this case it's clear that the board felt that it had enough specificity to continue to hear the case and also that the petitioner had enough sufficiency specificity to file to briefs in th brief and they did file a brief and the ninth circuit said that there are two ways you can satisfy the specificity requirement you can either stated with sufficient particularity in the nose to appeal or you can even if it was invalid there needs to be a showing a prejudice in this case and that the board acted well within its broad discretion in deciding to hear the case it received briefing from both sides and issued a decision thank a master calendar hating and this is before the immigration judge before the immigration judge yes i said we also challenge the m t a we thought he was defective because the person