good morning i miss kotch of course i represent mr garcia the morning and morning i see that i have ten minutes this morning so i would like to address my argument this morning on the viewport invalid deportation issue that i raised my briefs although i still would like to point out  believe the district court erred in the trial level by not in hearing to the law of the case doctrine and precluding much of the evidence in the second trial regarding his arrest offense turning my attention to the deportation issue i believe that a due process violation occurred for two reasons first i believe that immigration or immigration judge incorrectly advised mr garcia on the standards he would have to prove in order to rail on a cat claim and additionally after asked by mr garcia what type of evidence he could present did not adequately advise mr garcia on the types of evidence that he could see so that the court that the court was required to consider was that he wanted t mistaken that there were other regulations that govern the role in this particular context require the i j a to advise the individual of potential relief craft and doesn't require them to go as far as you are advocating well even as far as that but where would you rather i where would you draw the line for the immigration judge my i would draw the line is that is that when he first was required to tell him the potential relief and and mr asked what that standard was he should have been advised of the correct standard that he would have to show considering he is proceeding in a pro se fashion and then secondly when asked by mr garcia ok what evidence should i bring i think that under the regulations some a level of information that the immigration judge because mr garcia was requesting that the answer should have at least informs him of what he needed to bring newspapers it's in the newspapers all the time and i can refer the court to specific references in there but he does repeatedly ask to the hearing it's happening all the time i hear it all the time a person last week just got killed that i heard of him so but the other week given to him to go and think about it and decide if he wants to come back and do it and what evidence i mean how can we say something that if you've been told well that's fine you can bring that mis advise on what he would have to prove that that was so such a high standard that it left him with really wondering what could he bring to prove that he is going back to what the immigration judge defined as torture what he would have to prove in order to prevail in a cat claimed it was so insurmountable because he would miss advised mr garcia that it would have to be the government that has to be the government that would torture you and that i think that left him in a position that what could he bring  sufficient cat claim it was so far from what he should have been told as far as acquiescence what constituted acquiescence that it raised the standard so high for mr garcia that i that i think that that's what left him feeling like he could not policy concerns of of adhering to the crack standards of what constitutes torture and that prejudice does not need to be shown but even if this court decides that some prejudice must be shown i think that the evidence in two thousand and three which was the year of his deportation was there was insurmountable evidence that that mr garcia would have been able to bring evidence of acquiescence from guatemala within the e r c is the two is a form of relief and what it means practically speaking is that mr garcia would not have been deported back to a country where he faced torture he would have been in custody most likely here in the united states but he would have been given the opportunity to hopefully find another country that would have  him or prevented the removal that he faced as an element in this case here and so i think that because the court did not adequately advise him on what constituted torture which included acquies and the restraints case mentions which is important that in iran stress case this court still reversed that case and remanded despite the fact that the immigration judge mentioned in passing acquiescence once and that's true that's what happened in this case but it's also clear that in this case that's clearly not what was being expressed to mr garcia just isn't right what was being presented and used in that case all mentioned once was not acquiescence but rather it had to be the government that has to be the government who would torture because of that most advisable and then further not telling the sirkar see what he could present and i believe that there was a violation of his due process rights and the district court in this case erred by not granting that motion and i'd like to please the court good morning michelle jennings i may have the united states of america or i could move directly to the deportation issue mr garcia is challenging the validity of the deep work despite the fact that he has failed to exhaust all administrative brief what mr rusty's brief does not do is point out to a single statute or regulation which would require the immigration judge to make such legal definitions available to mr garcia and he had the right to be afforded the opportunity to make application during the hearing both of those things occurred and they occurred ten times over the immigration judge on several occasions at least relief and mr garcia's as the court has already pointed out mr garcia made the decision to appear pro said now having made that decision despite being advised that there was  counsel available to advise him at no cost to mr garcia he would then have the immigration judge not only serve as the arbiter of the deportation proceeding but also stepped down from the bench did it mr garcia decide and here is mr garcia's counsel and that is simply not an obligation that is recognized by any statute or regulation to save it mr garcia was not explaining it was not want to apply mr garcia ten times over said no i don't want to apply so for that reason if the question is whether this deportation was fundamentally fair whether it comported with m due process rights the answer is yes it did mr garcia chose not to take advantage of this one form of relief that was open to him but that was not through any fault or  failure of the immigration judge for that reason i believe that mr garcia is claim that the deportation proceeding was invalid in simply not true under the ninth circuit law if there are no questions regarding the deportation i would like to briefly address the direct issue and just simply point out there was in the reply brief that mr garcia submitted it seemed to imply that the government was not the government's argument as pointed out in several cases first that contents over shown and then most recently in two thousand and four and produced go in fact it's recognized that there is little difference between th third element under duress that element being that there was no reasonable opportunity to escape the threatened harm is in fact quite similar to turn yourself in to the authorities that the first of vailable opportunity as alone clearly mr garcia acknowledged that he did have a reasonable opportunity to escape the threat and harm you know as if there are no questions i would submit on my breath thank you very much the any thank you counsel rebuttal argument garcia on what constituted a cat claim and was not allowed to narrow what congress intended or for torture to be as far as the argument that the government just brought up about the dress code what was contentious say the dress occurred in panama you can't talk about colombia you can only talk about panama and i think that that if you view content and that way that's exactly what occurred in this case you're over your time thank you thank both counsel for the argument the case just argued will be