laid out a series of legal heirs committed by the immigration judge and the board of immigration appeals below errors which we contend should be corrected on remand now i understand our time together is short so i'd like to focus on two of those issues today st the finding that sheaffer had committed a particularly serious crime and this was not entitled to withholding over move all under the immigration and nationality act and nd it the board of immigration appeals assessment of chiefs application removal under the convention against torture now turning to the particularly serious crime analysis or honors i'd like to start before i jump into the legal issues with a little procedural background just to make sure we're on the same page as far as what happened here in the proceedings crime is a danger to the community of the united states and there's two ways to determine that someone has committed a particularly serious crime there's a categorical per se bar established by the statute itself which is any crime for  received a term of can imprisonment of five years or more and any other crime can still be particularly serious if the b a in the immigration judge looks at all the facts and circumstances and determines this particular serious despite not receiving a term of imprisonment of five years now here at the very st immigration hearing chief receiving the immigration judge determine that hers was a person a particular serious crime now although that decision is not before this court today because the did not affirm that point it's important just to understand because from then on she physically gratian proceedings were focused on her convention against torture release her application and her cat the hearing in may th and that she held was restricted to cat and then which we've cited in our briefing made explicitly clear that immigrants in removal proceedings have a statutory and due process right to a fair and full hearing and they set out what a fair and full hearing it's an opportunity to present evidence argument and make a record all three of those things and in this case schieffer never seen that opportunity she never had the opportunity to make any argument to show the court what specific facts that should focus on in determining whether she had committed a particularly serious crime she never had the opportunity make a complete record now those two points are very important because those are being held against she for here on this appeal your honour's the government has st asserted there was no need to make a dangerous finding under the particular serious crime analysis st because she fit in raise it in front of the immigration judge and the government says this issues that's been waived but there was no opportunity to raise that issue there was no hearing in which schieffer could raise the issue there was no briefing in which schieffer could raise the issue the only put to the only position chief i took was asking the immigration judge to reconsider her per se determination and apply the factors that the b i set out in matter of an and in that case the b i said look when it's not a per se crime we look at everything to determine otherwise if it is we look at the conviction we look at the facts and circumstances underlying that conviction and the big way in this case confirms that point they said quote we must look at all of those issues when determining whether someone has committed a particularly serious crime that didn't happen here if you look at the immigration judge's order and if you look at the b a s order in this case and solely on those two documents the only thing you would know is that sheaffer was convicted of st degree manslaughter and that she killed her husband that's it there's no mention in either opinion of the long history that she had with her husband a year and a half of abuse that she suffered the fact that she responded while being raped again in december of two thousand and thirteen the fact that she was slashed with a knife before she ever responded yes there are facts that are confirmed by the criminal court court below and they're not mentioned in the opinion of either the immigration judge or the b s a your honour's the criminal courts factual findings span twelve pages the entire agency and also submissions this is you spent fifteen words the boy said we recognize the significant harm suffered by the respondent during her relationship with the victim that's not sufficient this court has held that the wholesale failure to review evidence is a due process violation that entitles you to review so this is the nd issue we've raised under the particularly serious crime argument so the st is no hearing violation schieffer wasn't title to a hearing shooting go on the nd issue is despite there being no hearing immigration judge in the board of an immigration appeals have to do their work they have to review the evidence and come to  and think it can't just react and that's not what happened here the failure to discuss any of those important critical facts the wholesale failure to review that evidence that's a violation that needs to be corrected regard there your honor we think that the amateur's brief out on this point says it best when it need not necessarily be a separate determination but it needs to be a part of the particularly serious crimes determination so in matter of n a m to be i said look we don't do a separate dangerousness analysis anymore but that doesn't mean dangerousness isn't a very important indeed critical part of the particularly serious crime assessment in fact in matter of n a m the  clear quote the goal of protecting the public is at the heart of the particularly serious crime bar that dangerousness assessment and whether the individual is a danger to the community that's central to the determination and that's statutory the language itself provides that withholding of removal can be refused if the alien having been convicted by final judgment is a danger to the community and again in matter of g d s which we've cited in our briefing that's from two thousand and fourteen that's seven years after matter of that i am and three or five years after teen beholder the bag again said that the relevant statute provides quote the essential key to determining whether a crime is particularly serious and that essential keeney is whether the nature of the crime is one which indicates that the alien poses a danger to the community that the government will argue counsel that to well once it's been determined that there is a you know the serious crime of violence that it's automatic that there danger to the community your honor that's not what congress said when they set out the relevant statute the government hasn't made that argument in their brief that this is some kind of categorical particularly serious crime but even if they made that argument it's wrong congress has said the only per particularly serious crime is that which carries a term of imprisonment of five years or more there is no definition of a particular serious crime in the statute but the b s a has filled that in and they've said anytime we don't have a particularly serious crime under a per we look at everything if congress wanted to say any time you committed a crime against a person that resulted in their death that's a particularly serious crime they could have said that they didn't if the b i wanted to set that as it's precedent they could have done that they didn't their president clearly calls for the review of all the facts and circumstances relevant to a case to the extent it's not a person a particular serious crime and that's what we have here and thus the wholesale failure to review evidence is a critical legal heir that needs to be corrected but even beyond that even if you feel that the fifteen words that the b i included is sufficient assessment that they did consider these points your honour's this cannot be determined to be an articulate reasoned decision that provides this court sufficient fodder for review in fact when reviewing a similar case in the th circuit judge easterbrook said although the record contains evidence that drug dealing organizations in mexico target former police officers the board did not mention it that won't do the board must analyze rather than ignore material evidence and that's r r d v because someone died again that's not what congress said they announced it should be that's not what the b i said the analysis should be that's not what this court has said the analysis should be this court has confirmed you look at everything and there just simply is not that work done by the b i here and so for that reason it should be remanded on the lack of a hearing the particular series crimes germination that is the failure to review all the evidence and the cole committed failure to articulate a reason the station and then finally the dangerousness assessment i know we talked about that briefly but i just want to go back to that point quickly and talk and answer your question better about why the holder doesn't control here and that's because in two thousand and nine when t pivotal factor it has to be assessed and it matters in this case because if there was ever a situation where someone's prior crime doesn't implicate that they're necessarily going to be a danger to the community as now your hon with that because the appeal is ongoing but if i may briefly touch on this cappy shriner's because i think it's simple and it's extremely important to be i applied the wrong standard in reviewing the case reviewing the assessment of application under the convention and that was made clear by the attorney general no more than two weeks ago so the attorney general made clear that when an immigration judge makes if factual findings supporting the convention against torture decision the image of the b i a comes in and assesses those facts for clear air but applies the law to those facts to novell and that didn't happen here it is clear from the b a s order where they said we conclude that the immigration judge is predictive fact finding that respondent does not face a clear probability of torture is not clearly erroneous they applied a clear error standard ever feel and i'd like to point out briefly the be a language that the attorney general just recently overturned similar language to what the bee i said here and the attorney general made clear that's not right that's not a novel review and they kicked it back for further analysis by the by this court should do the same here because it's clear that the b i did not denying the motion to reopen to seek administrative a ban i'd like to st discuss the issue you just finished on with petitioners counsel with respect to the cat claim because i think that that's a very simple issue as well to address and if you look directly at the board reviewing fact finding for clear air and a decision from the board about reviewing predict a fact finding for clear air it's clear based on that that the sentence is reviewing the immigration judges fact finding for clear error and not to know th we also agree also meaning a separate determination with immigration judges conclusion that the respondents testimonial documentary and background evidence do not establish that it is more likely than not that she would suffer torture by or with the acquiescence of a government references the legal standards for cap relief and is making a legal determination to know that based on the totality of the evidence mischa did not meet the standard that under matter of our af as well as all of this court's case law as a is an appropriate and correct determination that's all this court can review it cannot get to the factual determinations behind that it can only consider whether that was an appropriate legal determination for the board to make and it was i'd also like to next discuss the perfectly serious crime germination there are three arguments presented regarding that huge unsee finding the st one is whether or not the agency aired and somehow not holding an additional hearing on the issue whole st this was an exhausted it was never raised to the board she never asked the board to remain and issue for an additional hearing to present additional evidence up until she got to this court the claim was always that the criminal court's findings of fact should have been sufficient and that's all it needed to be presented legal arguments were presented and the motion for reconsideration there's a discussion on the record saying that  that i'm talking about page four hundred and ninety five of the record that we're going to address then said that the judge would close the case for decision but allow if the parties wanted to provide any further briefs on the issue of the motion and what to do regarding withholding and whether or not to preach her met the claim as a person particularly serious crime the judge continued if i were to find that there could be additional testimony on the issue then i would just respect the case to another hearing i'm a chef his attorney said no objection it's clear factual findings were incur at all of the arguments are about the weight that was given to particular aspects of that determination the fact that the board considered the significant harm suffered by myself i joined her relationship is sufficient to recognize that the board consider the significant harm that was suffered by her it did not need to say forty five words those words sufficiently determined that the boy considered that fact and weighed it differently than which as attorney wished that they ha advanced that without recognition of the exact particulars that we don't know that they were fully considered that the way then a weight was given to him and there are some particularly around those allegations here that criminal court found to be proven right and that's that's what their argument is and my guess where they were wrong to the extent that their argument is there the argument was presented in the agency weighed them one direction and there's no evidence that the immigration judge did not understand that those facts are presented immigration judge clearly recognized all of the harm they suffered and discussed in throughout all of the testimony and transcripts everything that happened particularly with respect to the cat claim itself and evaluating that claim all of the claims about what happened really were molded into her testimony and whether or not she met her burden for proper to action and so  it's clear on this record that no evidence was disregarded all of the facts were considered and the board is not required to write an exit visas on every single contention it clearly did consider the fact that she was weighing more heavily it weighed the facts differently and although the facts here are significant and numerous that doesn't change the fact change the reality that the facts were considered and weighed and that's all that this co actually acknowledging specific evidence so for example then again we case in that case it was whether or not the government could protect an individual and the immigration judge did not even recognize or acknowledge specific evidence presented here the immigration judge did acknowledge the evidence that was presented the criminal court's findings of fact were central to everything that happened in immigration court and it was considered acknowledged and a decision was reach at that mold both the denial of a hearing as well as the provide the foley resigned decision argument and the rd argument has to do with whether or not the agency applied the correct standard and that deals with the dangerousness community and i the disagreement here is really one of semantics almost because under an am and under the board's pierce law it was required to consider the specific circumstances of the crime and whether or not that crime constituted a particularly serious one and that happened here and the immigration judge considered the circumstances of the crime and while there was evidence that mitigated the crime down to heat of a passion offense it wasn't a self defense under minnesota law and that was also that's all that's required under the board's analysis it weighed the facts considered the implications and reached a conclusion and any disagreement with that is factual and not legal i would only like to briefly address the nd petition for the year with respect to the pending you and t v s the petition and i believe that the case is fully briefed on that issue but i would like to highlight the fact other disagreements with that argument would be factual and not and would be precluded under the criminal alien bar and then with respect to the continuance standard i also would rest on our briefing but just point out that the reality is that mystify would have to demonstrate that there was a likelihood of success on the release that she was seeking that's not the year of the t v that the continuance itself and the standards for that are good cause shown and she has not met that standard by demonstrating that she was eligible for the necessary waiver thank you again your honors i'd like to quickly touch on a few points the st government counsel said that this issue the p s c issue wasn't raised to the board that couldn't be more incorrect in fact one of  issues for resolution raised to the board was this very specific issue it's one of her four issues presented she writes since the immigration judge never held a hearing regarding was on its application her application should be remanded for further proceedings to determine whether her conviction constitutes a particularly serious crime she later argues that the case again should be remanded this is a case where she asked the b a to remand so that this issue could be considered because it hadn't been because she didn't get a hear that's not like the waiver cases or the on exhaustion cases the government has raised where clearly the issue wasn't raised and again while she has counsel did indicate the record may be complete he also made clear what he would be arguing with respect to a particular serious crime on page three hundred and thirteen dollars of the record he quote says i would argue that this was not a particularly serious crime if given the chance your honour's i see that my time is running short and if i have your leave i'd like to finish you me i'll give and introduce evidence you know these are busy immigration judges we can't just assume that they're going to page through a one thousand pages ministre of records and identify the facts that are most relevant to their determinations argument matters hearings matter and that's why this court  solace said that it's not only a statutory right but a violation of due process if you don't get that hearing she didn't get that hearing and she's entitled to it and she made that issue known to the b i a in the b i just ignored it that's not something that this court should condone because again this is an agency that's tasked with making these assessments so that this court can can look at their decisions and say well yeah they followed their procedures and they followed the law are they didn't and here they clearly didn't there's no hearing there's no articulated reason