incomplete sentence is not legally adequate legally inadequate for purposes of review and the decision is just factually and legally incorrect a nd point that i would like to discuss in response to step in the chevron analysis is whether the statute you look at the statutory language whether that is clear and on and ambiguous and in doing that in considering that st step the court uses all the traditional techniques s in accordance with the respondents choice another couple other things i think in understanding the the framework the broader statutory framework a couple other points to keep in mind st of all the the right to counsel he when he went in he was thought that there was a that he would have a chance for another hearing the immigration judge did not ask him if he was waving if you want to have counsel present just  a you know question you have counsel do you have counsel here today basically he said no and then that was then the immigration judge went on with the proceeding and that was at the appeal level because the immigration judge in this context is the appeal  review of the asylum officers credible fear finding there was more of a discussion before the asylum officer but maybe it's whether or not it's enough i don't know that you're focused on the appeal before the i j a and whether there was a waiver there right yes fact i told him i asked him when he goes into the hearing to request a continuance of that i could you know be repressed in one way or another at the at the immigration judge hearing but somehow he was there by himself without you he was there yes i mean the case went there would be another hearing at which i would be able to be present but you haven't made any arguments about like he didn't have enough notice for you to have notice or anything like that we're just talking about the waiver issue talking about the waiver issue correct correct  the the right to counsel there is the same right that accrues in remove the proceedings in which this court has held that in order for a we you know that there needs to be a waiver knowing an intelligent waiver of the right to counsel and that th kind of colloquy that's required is just triggered purely by there being a right to counsel and an immigration proceeding yes i think yes it doesn't depend on which type in your view in our view no it doesn't depend on what type removal proceedings proceedings to determine whether or not the person should be deported from the united states or remove from the united states the regulations at the same time at the time that this provision was enacted also provided a right to counsel at that s statute was was an act it is one in which it was presumed that the person would have a right to counsel the same right to counsel that of cruisin in removal proceedings generally and i'm missing something here it's not a criminal case  it's arguable that it ought to be treated like a criminal case but it hasn't been and what's typically going to happen is the person has a right to counsel lawyers are protected by the th amendment from being compelled to work for free ordinarily they require that the client come up with some money and the client doesn't come up with the money they don't get a lawyer for that hearing and here it looks like at both levels he was invited to have a lawyer present and he said he didn't have one who could be present at that time and they went on and he didn't ask for any relief so that he could get a lawyer or if i missed in the record well under this court's case  law in order for the proceedings to go forward there has to be a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel and our argument is that that didn't happen in fact he went in expecting that he would have a right to counsel were the words in the record that show that  the in the transcript and i don't think i can point to the exact page but the judge asked asked the question do you have a lawyer and he said no he didn't have a lawyer that day and then the  the judge just went on look for that the judge did not ask whether he whether he wants to have a lawyer present with him he went into that hearing expecting that it was just an initial hearing like now come on e for the respondent it's very important to note at the outset that these were expedited reasonable fear proceedings not two hundred and forty removal proceedings as such the procedures that are involved in reasonable has a right to counsel so that statute which are the right which authorizes d h s s to issue a final administrative removal order and out lies outlined some of the steps that are associated with issuing that  order provide that an alien shall have the privilege to have counsel assist with reviewing the evidence that's associated with that removal order as well as possibly  counsel authorized to practice in such proceedings how do you know that only for reviewing the evidence out of out of outside the proceeding where do you get the extra stuff you just said it sounds like you're saying he has a right to counsel to help him review the evidence but not to appear before the eight point three one and two hundred and thirty eight both say in their heading that they're implementing to thirty eight b of the act they both say that they're going back to that provision of the act which says they have the right to counsel right but they're implementing different parts  provision of the access that there's a right to counsel so how can you have a regulation it's not really the regulation is the regulation doesn't say it's the interpretation of the regulation how can you get from a statute that says there's a right to counsel to an interpretation that says there is not a right to counsel is is again as it stood for that limited purpose of rebutting the charges that are in the final administrated removal order then that individual they can either wave any proceedings they're after or they can claim that they fear persecution or torture in the how can we talk about from the statute how can you try again to explain please how we know from the statue makes no mention of a claim of of any sort of relief associated with a claim of fearing torture or persecution in their home country but if the u s says they're going to have counsel for this proceeding then once the agency says that's part of the proceeding why isn't it still covered by the statute because because the reg itself that that discusses hearings before and i j which is the reasonable fear is absolutely silent on any sort of right to counsel in a hearing before an i j and that's where the just because it's two steps you have a regulation that silent and then you get an interpretation of the regulation you don't get our deference for an interpretation that's inconsistent with the statute right but it's our position that it is not inconsistent with the stature of our position as   at that point there's a different set of there's a reasonable fear regulations that govern the process for that proceeding and is there a different statute that speaks to that for the reasonable fear reg of those seeing earlier the reasonable fear  restructuring out to make sure that these individuals if they have a fear of persecution or torture in their home country that they're given the opportunity to present back so they're trying to combine two intentions or trying to come by the intention of having a streamlined proceeding with the intention of giving these aliens an opportunity to present a claim of fear of persecution or torture and that's where the reasonable fear regs come in they provide a process for that  that you're not saying yeah you had a right to counsel but at no cost to the government that's what the statute says and he just didn't exercise that right either because he didn't have the money to hire a lawyer or chose not to whatever but i think you're saying there's no way to have a coun didn't throw he didn't show up with a lawyer and then the i g through his lawyer wrote i don't understand why you're arguing that the i j a had that discretion unless what you mean to do is concede that he didn't adequately give up his right to a which is a way of saying he doesn't have a right to counsel here like this to be clear and to make sure i hope i'm not reading the court down the wrong road what i mean to say is that this is a streamlined proceeding and so the reason that i g s are given discretion is to prevent unnecessary delays and so that if an alien appears at court or before the immigration judge and requests a continuance through a team house it can only be granted as the regulations say in exceptional circumstances these proceedings are meant to be completed within ten days of the notice of referral being filed with the immigration court it is meant that the process be while thank you just a couple points one there's been just some discussion about whether this regulation to eight point three one g is inconsistent with the statute and i think i've argued that it is also relevant those it's really inconsistent with the regulatory framework and the entire regulatory framework which under which means that it's not really the o p m policy memorandum should not be given our deference to the relevant the broader regulatory framework is the they the respond has a right to get review of that in front of an immigration judge so it's it wouldn't make sense for the regulation to ride that right to counsel and a right to request withholding of removal if you didn't have it in the in the withholding  removal part i think that the relevant regulatory framework shows that the person has the right to counsel as well and then last whatever the court rules on due process the right to counsel and of course we think that he did he did have a right to counsel it was violated but whichever way the court rules on that the decision of the immigration judge really was defective it was just not legally adequate given the given the record that's there you know the fact that he testified nope court against these gang members and faces retaliation there's a reasonable possibility that he's he'll be successful and the court really does need to remain on this back to an immigration judge where he has the right to counsel if he gets remanded hopefully