correction facility for approximately twenty four months and the reason it remains there is because the bureau mis applied misrepresented the facts that the immigration judge had disposal in order to rule in favor of more says they have now much has been said as whether or not this court honorable as it is has the jurisdiction to hear as to whether or not a constitutional claim or question of law exists for you to see review of this petition and we say that you do and here's how you do the actual determination of the situation by the bureau of exceptional cherry picking taking from the wall case and the more ms was a case where there was significant evidence in favor of the petitioner that was ignored by the b i a it looks like in this case there were maybe you could say there was some sloppiness with regard to the b i a decision where they used the wrong you know they were they were looking at a r as opposed to convictions they were saying that he had been incarcerated numerous times but it was only really once except for this particular immigration case but the one time for the illusion of the police officers ok that's not lahore help but it doesn't look like they're cherry picking like all i'll use your term they were sloppy see the immigration judge has the opportunity to see witnesses they take judges findings and it says that it is credible but then it seems to attack the immigration judge and its findings by trying to whittle that out and try to bring the circumstances that lead to a hell of a how the before the immigration does servants that there's nothing we can do about it no that's exactly what the bureau did they started to review the facts and serve under stand i think that this court as a matter of law can do that and actually pinpoint to the actual claim itself by the adverse finding of the bureau they've actually violated is constantly done we get i mean we could probably say that about every one of these cases where the what you have your honest is you have a legal permanent resident he's been in this country more than twenty years ok he goes before the immigration judge proves this case ok one could wonder why the issue in its decision that because the hava had alluded or i committed a second degree car crime in the state of new jersey as a result that's a violent crime and as as such all the factors that they now start are reviewing and addition all of those factors now have to be placed against an exceptional and extreme hardship and that's wrong that's incorrect the sheriff at least said it and they say that in their decision accepted the it they misrepresented the facts here not not not small little facts but they actually just didn't consider the entire right below the the law they have that they also said you know what if we if we get to the if we get the merits we don't we don't think this is one where we could possibly grant the truth the waiver yes and so in effect if you win a battle here you sounds like you so when end up losing the war am i ok or is the how the hell are going to do the judge when if you return it back to them with the understanding with the instruction that they at least take verb veda or close to verbatim or don't go below the actual facts that the immigration judge heard accept it took as proof then i want to magically it would appear that he would be entitled to that i don't know how to get around that he you know had is and of i guess you want to counsel back then i've tried to go to the roof of my building to scream about that i wasn't you know his counsel would have said there's no way in the world you're going to issue about that this there is a constitutional claim here the fact that the solution is that verse two to how that the how the using that high standard of a second degree charge where it should not have used because a second degree you need something that's an extreme hardship or there's some debate between the b i if it's a crime if it's a crime and we respectfully disagree that it's not a crime on that the exceptions  extreme hardship piers the problem yes john and i have you got someone who was abused by a relative a daughter at age eleven yes she went for one year of counseling she appear to be much better she claims she did much better after that she is i believe today a senior in high school yes yes and so and the other although he's given support in not just financial support but  psychological support over the years he still hasn't been there are no he has run in with all the respect he was there every other day on the weekends parliament i understand and i understand that but the point is that at this point she's going to be going off to college what to have him here in the united states most cases like this yes i've seen him in my twelve and half years this doesn't rise to the level of extreme hardship judges i mean i've seen much worse the way they've they've they've just said nope can't do it i know you have but you know today in today's world parents and children aren't trying to the finances and the economic crisis and all that i can continue he proved a trial pain directly to the trial to the mother one hundred dollars a week at that time it's a lot of money for an eleven year old so that he was given support and it was helping that child and you  married to the mother of the child but he was helping her as well relied on his second degree eluding conviction and cited matter of gene in determining that his crime was violent in doing its discretionary analysis it did also go into determining that mr day had a had to establish the heightened hardship burden but the board nevertheless held him to the lower threshold of to demonstrate extreme hardship in making its analysis about the each anyway here as it is the government's position that the board can read way the evidence completely has no deference to the well on discretionary review it can do do novo review if it was to dispute didn't dispute any of the facts that occurred again they were just way differently york didn't get as much discussion as the titian or would have liked but that again goes to the weighing and that is beyond and the significance of the speak as to what happened to the daughter when when she was a minor the board does cite of course the correlating pages into the immigration judge's decision it obviously did not write next to jesus on th correct and it's undisputed that those charges were were dismissed but nonetheless you know they are in the record he was arrested on those two occasions and he does have two convictions a dui and also the second degree eluding offense  which you know the board is an emerging appropriately found is a is a violent crime with to be convicted under that which mr taylor had and then the board says that he that they were upset that he failed to take full responsibility for the harm that he caused we didn't really cause much harm i mean and all of that is when i look at the record although he was attempting to do was to differentiate what happened in his case from the mendez moralities case of the b i a and that was statutory rape somebody who's intoxicated who is not in a high speed chase but not stopping when instructed and therefore is eluding police that that's a very finding by the board in any event in making this but the but but the point that they did make is that there were there were findings that the board made that were different without finding that they were clearly erroneous they just went to in effect and made their own findings and as i said maybe it just rose to the level of sloppiness where they talk about several parts preservations of the fact there's really only one and a host of other things that you might consider but there's a flavor to what would be i e did here and it seems like it went overboard in trying to find that this person wasn't deserving of a waiver when in fact the example i just gave  you is something where they overstated the case by a by significant degree well you are again this is a purely discretionary determination the attorney general by designation to the board  mendez whether or not you take responsibility or not the alien would take responsibility is a factor to be considered in the it correct or and in those facts you know that he was intoxicated at the time that he hit a vehicle which had somebody in it and that he did not that he admitted to fleeing the police when they attempted to pull him over for this offense in order to be convicted under this you have to cause a risk of injury or death to another person up and we have asked was he going to we know i do not have that information i mean just personally that was given the record that he was was not going very fast and you know the mistake that he made was that he pled guilty to second degree alluding when he  you know forced him not to do that well you know his conviction remains finally for immigration purposes he's not made any sort of pedia versus kentucky challenge to this conviction in the state court so it is final he pled to all the underlying an element of the offense to which he pled guilty to and again that conviction is final for immigration purposes i also point out here that the immigration judge found that his conviction what was a crime involving moral that has never been challenged so as we sit here today there is no challenge that that second degree of alluding offense is a crime involving moral turpitude but we're dealing with it here today as is the waiver correct but i why because the only end of this time was really intoxicated this was again the second offense of intoxication which can show the pattern that he was subject to this type of behavior and he did in fact cause injury to another view call in well this is all added aspect of it that he fled the scene you didn't stop to see you think a vigil was ok the police the police came to our detain him and he fled from them so we have that added element which is certainly rise it to the level of moral turpitude but again here that's uncontested i'm just pointing that out that he never challenge that so let me ask you something surely on a little bit different let's assume that we find that there was and as the discussion here has shown it he's really challenging the weights and the characterization or the short recitation of facts that the board did in reaching its analysis as did both so you say fact that his nature of his conviction and his other arrestee in determining that he did not meet marry the waiver one as a matter of discussions and two for failure to salvage the extreme hardship standard despite finding that his crime t or notion is that if this issue about remorse comes off and he comes more often in trial courts especially during trial and at sentencing i i think that because of a language issue that's my interpretation as an officer of the court that there was that issue or that haley's of lacking remorse but the fact is he pled guilty because he said on the rough that i was guilty maybe should have been is as in preparation for today but i'm just responding to issues with the bureau itself if this goes back i trust it will because back it just goes back before new board and they have the opportunity to consider the susan by the circuit court here it's morning in terms of how to handle these liberties that maybe that particular board so it didn't take into account all the such a crime of moral turpitude the fact is that he was intoxicated he admitted that he was knox is there is there any case that we have that deals with whether eluding police officers or crime or tripped or i don't i in preparation for this argument i don't have one handy and i did not come across one in terms of it being the eluding being in this situation of the finest want talking to i think the record again was not is hazy i think that part of the transcript for sentencing he makes a reference that he actually came across the motorist he sped off but then he returned back when he returned back that's what happened he encountered a police officer that evening or that morning in question and as a result from that situation less than the legal limit of thirty or twenty twenty five or thirty now the senseless for three years and it serves or not and i'm glad that you raise it to try this the sense was for three years he then makes an application in new jersey for they call the intensive supervise probation program that's not an easy thing to get into number one it takes like six months just to make the application and actually get a consultant on that's what they call them and then comply with all these strict requirements i mean you have to be in you have to be in by six pm they check you routinely at the phone they come to your door two o'clock in the morning it's very intense it's not an easy thing and he actually complied with it that's why he was able to serve the balance of his term outside in this program