honor this case arises from the j f m panels directive that the parties facilitate an individual petition for review raising the appointed counsel claim for children and see jail g s case the this child's case clearly illustrates why the due process clause requires appointed counsel for indigent children in full removal proceedings the interests that he has at stake here are profound you know his life may well be at stake in this proceeding but his case is extremely complex at the silent portion of it implicates the law governing particular social groups which have just callahan your honor in the race case called elusive and has vexed lawyers and judges for decades he also has a separate claim to mavin be a stronger claim under the special immigrant juvenile category but the procedural hurdles required to obtain that relief are far beyond the capacity for any one represented child to navigate indeed there is not an area of law outside of this one where the law permits children to litigate against train prosecutors where liberty interest anything extensions i just would like to have actually cleared up just so as a backdrop as you proceed to because you've got you know essentially you've got the you've got your claim regarding court appointed counsel and then you have your regarding full and fair hearing claim and i don't want but all right so we have the miner and we have the mother and they come across and there are quite quickly discovered now my regard my understanding and i just want to make sure the mother was previously removed by herself that's correct ok and the child wasn't with her at that time that's what the records gesture on her o so so she already had it she already had that against her and so her case now of coming over there's no it's not associated derivative lee that's correct your honor she asserted a claim a fear of removal when she came with him on this occasion and because of that she was given a reasonable fear interview which is the procedure afforded to people who are coming back even after they have a prior removal was cases her for her her and him for him right so if your client were to prevail ultimately i mean there would have to be a number of things that would occur because you've got the counsel claim but say if you could even lose on that but you could prevail on sending it back for another hearing and then we wouldn't know what would happen at another hearing but if you were to prevail down the line that doesn't automatically is that correct correct your honor and in the family separation issues obviously are a separate matter here and it's one of the reasons among several why you know you can't rely on the mom to represent the child because they're  obviously you know potential conflicts operating and you know if you have two people who come across together you would separate them and have one represented by one represented by another and then one other procedural thing after the hearing in front of the i j a here there was an appeal to end and the minor was represented by counsel there then there was a b i a hearing and the minor was represented there  and that what i sense under all of this is there any showing in the record that this minor is ever likely to prevail on anything yes your honor although to be clear under montas lopez this course decision on the statutory right to counsel we don't believe there is a prejudice requirement here in the court was very clear there held that there is no prejudice requirement for a denial of counsel claim partly because it gets very hard on an extremely sparse and counseled record to reconstruct it in a way to figure out what kinds of prejudice could be operating and but nonetheless yes your honor if there is such a requirement which we do not believe there are showings of likelihood to prevail here  first as to special immigrant juvenile status if he had been advised and you can see just from that you've been very sparse record here that he's been abandoned by his father for many years that said and i five eighty nine it's said by the mother it's confirmed  in the immigration judges questioning as he jail ji and that it is in the best interests of the child not to be sent back to honduras where a gang put a gun to his head let's say the i j a had advised him that at that time it's my understanding that procedure takes years so and less so than the i j a went forward and did everything else correctly and said ok you don't qualify for asylum withholding your cat or whatever is there any requirement that they have to they get to remain  if there's nothing you say ok you may be this state would give you this relief so immigration judges the board has reversed immigration judges where they have failed to administratively close cases or continue cases to allow that process to go to happen the special immigrant juvenile process and it's our understanding it may sometimes take longer but it sometimes takes months where you know you have to initiate the proceeding in the state court but that can happen and it can be resolved you know because the state court order of these for immigration purposes won't do him any good unless the removal order is vacated but you know we're watching that he's sixteen and a half or ish you know now that the family court has jurisdiction until he's eighteen and you know into the immigration and nationality act that congress pressley provided that undocumented immigrants are entitled to counsel quote at no expense to the government unquote why isn't that provision controlling your honor it's not for three reasons first the d h as general counsel rejected the view that that at no expense to the government provision bars the government from being required to pay for counsel in removal proceedings and what that the d a just general counsel found was that's a description of a right that applies to everyone in removal proceedings which is you have a right to bring your own lawyer to the proceeding in that way it's different from for example border inspections where even if the lawyer is you know banging down the banging on the door the government's position is that there's no lawyer permitted in this proceeding but it does not thereby bar the government from ever paying for counsel and so you know that's the first that's the position of the d a just general  and that's completely different than that that language you're saying it requires it doesn't required for everyone your honor but yes we think it when i think that that language requires it we're saying the fair hearing provision which is a different say before before b i think it is the fair hearing provision requires counsel where counsel is needed to make sure you get a fair hearing and if you look at other requirements like the interpreter a fair hearing statutory construction i'm having difficulty with your argument that the fair hearing even though you that that provision writes out at no expense to the government but you know i don't want to belabor it because obviously the argument is given strength by the constitutional considerations and that's our primary submission the last thing i'll just say about your honor is that the fair hearing requirement has already been read to include other rights like the right to interpretation the statute doesn't say anything about there being a right to interpreters but the da has held and not just that even pre hearing discovery like your honor decision in the case and that's not this is that you didn't say that there's a right to pre hearing discovery but it's implicit where needed to give you a fair hearing and that's that's our salvatore argument and also i'm curious under the matthews three prong test that we would apply here can you point us to a case where a right to counsel has been held as required we apply the matthews three step test yes your honor now not in all parental terminations proceedings but in some of them if the case is complex enough there is a requirement under the supreme court's decision and la or and that has been implemented by statute in many states i'm glad you raise lassiter because i think for me this is for me this is the most important question for the case are you advocating here under last winter or in that line of cases that in every case a someone is under eighteen years old is gets a lawyer or you saying that the facts of this case require there to have been a lawyer let me answer that two ways your honor the primary argument in the brief is that children as a class are required counsel in order to get their hearings and the procedure as a whole the analogy in other words to prevail terminations proceedings here is removal proceedings i think is removal proceedings conducted under twelve twenty nine a are the same for adults as for children and so what we're arguing is that a subset of people and that are entitled to counsel because they needed to get their hearings just like turner the rogers and civil contempt proceedings right all civil contempt or seedings no right to appoint  counsel but some if the government is represented if the cases particularly complex are arguing that all minors are entitled to count and that's our primary submission the supreme court in cases involving children on the sentencing side with respect to custody in j d b they have treated children as a class that g d b says the cognitive and other kinds of impairments not capacity differences between children and adults are universal so that is our primary submission and that being said i think this is a particularly strong case because the interest at stake here are profound given that you could see we would be the first to go there how bold it is i guess for you decide your honor but yes there is not a court which has found that there is an appointed counsel a right for children jai lin comes awfully close which and document which undocumented immigrants in removal proceedings are entitled to by statute are you asking us to go far beyond what congress prescribe respectfully your honor i think the last portion of the opinion that something very different you know they say the immigration judge erred because minors are entitled to trained legal assistance that's a quote where they have claims that require adjudication and the court says look it was a tough position judge for that proposition you wouldn't have to be making this argument it doesn't stand for that proposition you're jumping off of that and extending it well you know are saying is the court said that you can proceed against an un representative adult the service question forget being in court can you serve a child with a notice to appear just to start the case at this court holds and forest charges you cannot because the minor you know again are generally not i approach appreciate or navigate proceedings that significantly impact their liberty interests that's what the court says in forest office and says you can't even give the notice to appear if they had tried to give the notice to appear just to see jail gee that would be  service yet the government's argument is he can represent himself in court and that the things that you know again it's not a case about counsel it's just about service but it seems to follow that if you can't even serve the child because of the things that we all know about children it seems to follow that also the child can't be asked to represent himself in court you know we have an obligation to consider what this is going to cost if we agree with you we're basically imposing what's in the nature of an unfunded mandate on the government resources are limited and if you if you the government pays for this there are going to be less money to pay for other thing should be up to congress and the court you know the funds are to be allocated  process clause is involved but you i agree with you your honor that it is something that the court has to consider and there's just two points i would make in the context of considering that in the first is the government pays for a prosecutor in every case involving a child paying for one side and a second your honor again if we look to lasater and lassiter the supreme court is looking at this where they're imposing a partial funded mandate on the states for a parental terminations proceedings and they say yes the financial considerations here matter know if you're sort of thinking this through then why wouldn't everyone dump a minor at the border and get a lawyer and go from and have that and have that at the government's expense w honor the person still has to prevail on their claim you know we're not talking about a situation of you know people dumping i mean this is a person who fled the most violent city prevail on a crime to get a lawyer if we follow what you're saying all they would have to do would be  s get caught say i'm a minor and i want to stay you know and i've got i don't want to go back because i'm afraid that would entitle them to a lawyer right yes your honor but you'd have to i just want to stress that that is not the case that we have here this is the person who's fled one of the most violent cities on earth in the state department report although nobody pointed this out because his mother and you couldn't read it but i page one forty three it corroborates her nine children killed in one month in the year that he was fleeing san pedro sula so you know this is not a situation where you know you've got floodgates of people i know that i think we briefed a lot of this but i'd like you to go into the hearing itself and talk about that because your time is going down yes your honor let me just briefly when you say the hearing itself you mean the what you're saying was unfair about the hearing what wasn't developed about nobody ever asked why did the gang persecute you why did they come to get you nobody ever asked him why do you not want to join your nexis is fundamental to asylum law right that question is never asked nobody ever asked him about his uncle we know from the i five eighty nine and the testimony they targeted his uncle family is a par magic social group that is but nobody ever asked is there any connection between these two these two things and on stage i think i've already explained it your honor you know that was apparent from the record that he had been abandoned and i'd like to reserve the right time to frankly events if we have additional questions when you come when we come back all expanded for the panel thank you so ok thank you unless the panel wants to ask it right now ok good morning good morning your honor please the court kiley keen on behalf of the government your honor from the government's perspective the relevant first question is to look at c j elegies particular case right we understand that they're making a larger case about children as a class but this is an individual person's removal order that because he was able to have the opportunity to retain private counsel proceed with his claim file an application to testify in support of it and in fact he was even able to file a pro se appeal to the board immigration appeal well there's a couple of things that happened and maybe you can sort of incorporate this into the argument that you know one of the things i'm just going to or has seen though we held that it was error for the i j a to instruct the petitioner that she could either speak on behalf of her minor son or retained counsel and ninth circuit precedent and we're in the ninth circuit because a parent may in fact speak on behalf of her child even if the child does retain counsel so didn't the i j a commit the same error here by  maria on january thirtieth two thousand and fifteen that she could either request a little more time to find an attorney or you can go forward today and speak on behalf of your sign it's an interesting question as to whether or not maria could waive the statutory right to counsel i think that's kind of what you're getting at here is whether or not he had to i'm talking about the language that's what was said if you could it's an either that the court sort of presented it as an either or and has seen though takes has a problem with that well in the sense that she didn't ask for a continuance to receive private counsel or in some other context because what the immigration judge did here was asked her whether or not she was going to proceed and speak for sue jail and she said yes she said the immigration judge said are you ready to proceed on the claim for asylum and again she said yes so at that juncture that i mean that could have been an opportunity for her to you know speak on the minors behalf even if she has counsel so it's not an either or proposition i think that's correct even though the regulations allow for a parent to speak on behalf of a child who's on represented as well and i think that's something that maybe the briefs don't make completely clear there's some reference to it in the reply brief but a parent has the ability to represent their child in immigration proceedings under the regulations ok so if you want to say that this particular child didn't need a lawyer here aside from then i just got to develop the record and to them to fill out but didn't really explain exactly what asylum was basically said well just because you're afraid of someone i don't think that that means that you're going to be able to establish a social group i didn't i didn't really that government didn't ask any questions either i mean the government didn't just said just left it be so it's pretty bare bones so why i should we send back to ask some of those questions to exactly find out well if i can speak to counsel's point about prejudice right because they're relying on this montoya's lopez decision which is which was a denial of a continuance to retain private counsel that this court reviewed and said actually the denial of the continuance in that case equated to a statutory denied denial of the right to counsel right and in that instance because the right stems from the statute as opposed to from the constitution the new prejudice needs to be established that's not what we have here so to your questions about if there were error before the immigration judge if the i g didn't under hasn't oh did not fully develop the record in the way that she was required because he jelled she was not only  minor but pro se because that requirement applies to person adults as well then the remedy would have been for see jail g s attorney before the board so you have shown the board what evidence was not developed during the hearing below and we don't have that here we have some questions that were posed in there not not dissimilar to the to the issues that you just raised were white why didn't the immigration judge ask about this or that but it's not just a matter of not asking those questions we need to know what the answers would have then in order for the court to take a preview look at what the claim is to see if there's prejudice we don't have that here and if he had proceeded pro say to the board you can sort of understand why those arguments would be made but he had private counsel before the board and that private counsel was making the argument that the immigration judge erred but not provided in the board and therefore on the on on review to this court any indication of how the claim would have been different if used in the case back and he has a private attorney or has a government appointed attorney or  counsel represent him we still need of a clear picture of what evidence is going to be presented that's going to may affect the outcome of the case to a savage projects and that's why the government is saying on this record particularly where there was a counsel to appeal to the board we just don't have enough to automatically right but it's a case by case analysis well we don't necessarily disagree with the reasoning and laster what i think faster really is in line with the government's position as well which is that there's no categorical right to counsel but that in an individual case the balance made need to pay one way or the other that may require the assistance of counsel now whether it has to be government funded counsels a different question like why but what's that's the that's the real crux of blastoderm alastor says that in certain circumstances the government must provide counsel to a parent in that situation i want to make clear i understand what you just said because that's when i read your briefs i didn't think you were on board with their reading of blasters i just want to make sure i understand sure if their position and they'll correct me in the bravado if i'm wrong their position is that as a second place argument they will take last year is the way we should go and counsel may be available under certain circumstances under the  court and that the government would pay for counsel in those particular cases not a medically but case by case analysis is the government saying now that you agree that that should be the test we adopt i was with you until you said the government must pay because a month and a half after he got there with his merits hearing he paid for an attorney to represent him before the board so one of the arguments the government is making is are we sure that he was even denied a statutory right to counsel much less a constitutional right with ok as of the big issue there are instances absolutely in removal proceedings where the assistance of somebody it doesn't necessarily have to be counsel into the regulation it could also be a parent it could be a custodian it could be a law student who's being supervised right the regulation list out the types of people who can help represent somebody it removal proceedings removal proceedings unlike parental terminations proceedings of laster also have this grand infrastructure of pro bono resources right it's required for an immigration judge and a d h s officer who's serving in n t a to provide a list of people who will help minors and adults actually who are indigent proceed through their proceedings so unlike last year where there is not that support structure yes i can imagine an individual case where a child would come before the court and the immigration judge would have no ability to effectively communicate with the child not unlike the interpreter situation that they say they spoke about before but the difference with laster is that the immigration judge has the ability to call upon some of those agencies and resources who agreed to put their names on this list to try to facilitate counsel in a way that wasn't present and massacre so i'm with you and  to a certain extent all the way up until the point where there's going to be a constitutional right for the government to pay for the attorney i think the immigration judge has already worked with the pro bono resources that are in the communities that they serve to help children get counsel and if an immigration judge can't communicate effectively with the person before them then yes they need to do something to remedy that because that would even be a statutory right but to be violated clear i mean so but the answer is no the answer is no you don't agree with them i don't agree with the appointed counsel part if i mean yes i don't agree with that but there there there may be an instance where an attorney is needed to facilitate the case along through the system but i don't disagree with that but i'm just saying the government isn't obligated under the statute but this is kind a problem with your position i think in this case is that if you have a situation where you confess that a lawyer is needed but not this case the ok i'm ok i agree with the case may be different and there may be some important differences in this case but i'm saying as a general matter we have to write an opinion this case and we've got to figure out how it's going to be words on be clear we understand if you say a lawyer is needed to facilitate matters i think that's what you said right if the person does not have the resources to do that paul no a c l u lawyers ready to parachute in and fix this right what we do the immigration judge still has tools in the tool box they can continue proceedings they can administratively closed proceedings the immigration judge the immigration court can call in some agencies and wait until that representation paean be provided they don't necessarily have to just barrel forward there's nothing in the regulations that we're going to ask you i think i let me ask you this all right do we need to reach that issue in order to decide that case if there is a right obviously we have to do the statutory interpretation and or under congress and decide if if there's a blanket if right to being a minor at the border and whether that per se and what the a palance are asking for i don't know and don't we need to reach judge owen says teasing out a last word or that where you're saying there might be something out there do we have to decide that to decide this case i don't frankly i don't know that you need to decide either of those questions because you could find that c j algy received a full and fair hearing and what what would the decision past that look like even though he got interpret that rather relative to the subsequent part of the statute that talks about a fair hearing there and then plus the case law they're saying that there's a due process right but they're not establishing the prejudice that would allow the court to remain and well that's why you're saying they lose on that issue i think we have to decide that issue i think it's pretty you know i think pretty squarely presented i'm not sure the issue you could prevail on that issue but then there's another issue about whether  be and stents where there might be a requirement and that's what judge owens is asking about do we have to decide that i don't know why you would i mean again it would just be like a buys or i guess it doesn't even apply to the actual person who we have to decide whether we have to we have to decide their issue about whether there's a blanket right if you reach the question i guess i would just say that how do we avoid reaching the question because like presented here well because it doesn't even apply to the actual person in th case so you would be deciding what that there's a hypothetical about if we found that this but if we found under our case law and if we found under the statutory provisions that it was a requirement that we do have then that's what they're asking us yeah they said we have to cite that as well they want you to put that issue before the individual in this case they want you to first find that there's a right for all kids and then say because he didn't have a lawyer his rights were violated i'm suggesting the reverse this court routinely evaluates whether somebody's got a full and fair hearing kids adults proceed with counsel it's an incredibly common claim in immigration proceedings and so you could just decide that he got a full hearing and he was yet another long has are entitled to that regardless of whether they get a you come out play same with well that's a state procedure and they only have to advise a federal but there seems to be some case law that says if it's a likelihood if they're eligible for that that the immigration judge might have to well i disagree a little bit because what the immigration judges obligation is this was an on bank lopez vazquez decision out of this court is that it needs to advise about a parent eligibility for relief at the time of the hearing and as we talked about in the brief special when we're going juvenile status or classification is not relief if we give you no rights you can still be removed even if you get it so the government is drawing that distinction here what the what the immigration judge would have advised about would have been adjustment of status that is the actual relief it is an application you fill it out the immigration judge can adjudicate it at the s i j portion of it doesn't take place in immigration court doesn't even take place before the agency some of it takes place before a state court and itself does not really relieve the individual being removed from the country so it's really the government's position that the immigration judge didn't even have a duty to advise because adjustment would be the relief application now if  g had a state court order or had something pending in state court or had something pending before the h s regarding the visa petition i think we'd be in a little bit different situation because then the person before the immigration judge at the time of the hearing about how would you know about that if it's a process and you don't ask about it well it lets you know i mean hypothetically had he had something like that pending and the immigration judge didn't go into that area we would never know about it then right well i think i the immigration judge asked whether c geology had any petitions pending and the answer to that question was no if the answer to that question had been yes we'd be in a different situation and maria was correct to say no because in fact he didn't have  adjustment of status through the s i j provisions she is not eligible to ever get any immigration benefit from that because she's a parent it's in the statute so his father's advantage to him the mother can't get an relief so then if he got that what would happen to him but he just be a minor here with no one well the state court order is there to determine the custody situation is custody situation so i would imagine if he ever does decide to go into state court what the state court is adjudicating is what to do with him right do they place him in the custody of his mother who's here who brought him here or do they issue some sort of dependency order or he's a ward of the state you know they can save you if you put him if they put him in the custody of his mother who from what you're saying doesn't have a right to be here and this she get to stay no could have chosen to put them into proceedings together when they caught both of them at the border it was a discretionary call they didn't have to put her into reinstatement proceedings they could have put her in proceedings with c g o g and i bring this up because one of the arguments that the government may against finding for a categorical constitutional right to counsel is that children are and all sort of various flux in terms of what their legal position is not only to other minors but also a legal position within the country a lot of the kids that they're talking about when they advocate for counsel for every child who's under the age of eighteen are in proceedings with their parents they don't have their own claims their derivatives right fighting for a categorical right to counsel w the kids in those proceedings get counsel even though the parents don't and even though the kids have no actual interest in the relief right so it's very very dramatically from siege l g s case where he's the one who's essentially driving for the claim for relief here independent of his mother but these are discretionary calls that the agency makes in terms of also they could have put c g l g an expedited removal proceedings rather than putting them into the fold you know the proceedings that that the court reviews all the time so there's discretionary calls along the way that place people in different legal classifications and it's the government's argument that's at the lower end of that classification i think we make that clear in the brief by pointing out that he was caught immediately after being apprehended known family ties to the country you know all of these things that put him at the closer and expedited removal than somebody say who has a green card who the government is trying to put into removal proceedings after they've been here for years and years educated  family ties things like that so we just want to make sure that we get on the record that see jail he is at the lower spectrum of interests and this goes i think to joe jones question there could be a case where somebody has an incredibly important  tied to the country you know you could have a sixteen year old who's a green card holder who is in proceedings alone for some reason parents are here who might be the type of case where the issues are of such importance and you just coun taking an incredibly active role in trying to strip the person of the green card for whatever reason maybe they committed a crime as the corners very well criminal issues are incredibly complicated legal not factual questions right so in that type of complicated case with somebody who has shown significant ties the united states i could see that the immigration judge would need to take more steps in those cases who are sure that either counsel or a parent or a law student or a clergyman or somebody is there to help the  the government here was a bit of a potted plant well i actually say that that was a safeguard i understand that they think it was because the government didn't want to develop the record but i actually think under the  decision it actually helped here that the government was it you know they keep saying trained prosecutors going up against a child will here the prosecutor just sat and just let let things proceed wasn't objective and wasn't introducing their own evidence wasn't cross examining the child you know did i think to a certain extent that that was actually a benefit for speech well would it have been helpful if the or should it should the i g have at least said what asylum or what you have to prove for asylum because they don't seem to know anything about any of this well and asylum is a fact driven inquiry right so the immigration judge asked the relevant questions the immigration judge did ask about family and did ask about j responded to the gangs when they tried to recruit him and asked him why and how many times and how old were you and when did this happen and what did you do in response to it was really probing through the testimony of immigration judges know quite well what it takes to make out a case and the immigration judge here was exhibiting that by asking c geology the relevant questions admittedly the testimony is pretty sure i don't disagree with that but part of that is just because the immigration judge can kind of cut to the chase a little bit and ask the questions that are going to make up the claim instead of doing a lot of the background things that we often see in rivers from proceedings that you know will go on for pages and pages of the testimony immigration judge here was a snare and she knew it was a gang claim because maria had already expressed that  the mother can when withholding of removal and that claim is live is presented in front of the immigration judge she was found credible in a reasonable fear interview and that is going forward so she absolutely can win the right to stay here and second in the point that the jail g is sort of sort of an expedited removal or could have been or something like that is incorrect if they had put this child in expedited removal he would have been found credible in a credible fear interview could have been entitled to that  would've been found credibly is found credit by the immigration judge in the full removal proceeding and then he would have been entitled to be exactly where he ended up in a full removal proceedings so he has all the rights that everyone in a full removal proceeding  a that when he was represented there's never you know there's never been any you know what's where's the beef here you know there's never been any representation about how this would have you know what happened yes your honor that are going  make the record i know but what you say is this is why he was prejudiced because if we were allowed to have a full hearing this is what we would be able to say and this is how he would be able to establish that he was entitled to relief and the fact that the i a didn't develop the record none of this ever came to light understood your honor the idea that you have to show exactly that you are eligible for some relief and exactly what evidence you would have presented has been repeatedly rejected by this court the government has the government has made this argument and lost it in moron enrquez as to a to twelve h claim in kano married that to an asylum claim the court says you don't have to show exactly what evidence and if you think about it would totally transform the way these cases are litigated on appeal if we say the interpreter was inaccurate as in paris last or well then where's the declaration saying what you would have testified to if you say hey the immigration judge should have advised about two twelve eight as in the case  the court says very clearly we don't know for sure that they qualify that there's a qualifying visa they say moron enriquez we don't know for sure that they would have met the hardship requirement that is not required but you have to show is that it may have made a difference that it potentially d they his that the threat to his life is coming from the fact that he reported it and that they found out about that and that is also a viable claim under enrquez rebuffs so there's certainly enough to establish that if there is a project requirement which again we don't believe there is just other very quick point your honor we would like the court to hold that the immigration judge could not have proceeded against c jail g without an attorney and then if the holding can be the primary condition is that it's because he is a child and because he's a child for that you know the narrow holding potentially and we believe that's consistent with lasater internally rogers because some adults can go forward without attorneys but children cannot write the narrow holding would be if we're so lucky would be this is a case involving asylum it's a case involving a particular social group and so it is a complex case where there is a lot at stake and because of that the this is a very strong case for counsel and that would be the narrower holding but either way what we're asking for is a holding that you cannot proceed without an attorney we agree with the government but there are many ways to implement that rule you know there are pro bono programs they weren't available for him because he's exchange that happened but to be clear you know that that is the basic problem here is that the absence of pro bono resources for this but even in other cases there's a shortage you know i'm not going to stand here and say think that you both want to thank you for the both of your argument and in terms of putting that the best legal arguments for each of your sides forward thank you thank you very much for this matter them will stand submitted in the court will be and recess until tomorrow at nine