council next case twenty paris twenty's versus lynch mr random to respond or sort of in the same ballpark about mr paris want to summited seven statements seven testimonial statements on his own behalf from family members and business colleagues testifying about his length of stay has good moral character i don't know the good character is real hard to square with his with his activities he does have an arrest record he does his only conviction though was was for public drunkenness everything else was dismissed the issue is that the immigration judge didn't consider and did not consider the statements at all you have seven people saying this is a good guy you have to weigh this good more characters i've said balancing test and we're not asking the court to wait it differently what we're saying is immigration judge needed to consider this evidence which was favorable to mr harris when does when he made a decision he did nothing siddur the statements at all they don't appear in the decision the immigration judge's decision doesn't discuss them on the record he notes that he received some statements in spanish and then at the end at the close of testimony immediately launches into an oral decision the seven statements were not considered at all the response position is we don't know whether they would consider mexico he's not complaining that he's you know potential victim of just offered it isn't an asylum case judge wright he's not he's not he's not he's not saying that he would suffer hardship that the test is whether his family here would suffer se throughout the entire process the questions about whether he would be able to transfer his business activity here he started his own fire suppression business which is apparently pretty successful employees people whether he could take that and move that to mexico or whether he could get hired there to do something else nobody ever asked those questions so there's nothing in the record about his ability to go to mexico and support his american family support esmeralda's and his current you know his other child we don't know it because those things weren't asked i think the immigration judge presumed because he was a grown man he could go get a job but we don't know because it's not in the record those questions weren't addressed at all  would be homeless in a month whether the property would have to be sold letters business would completely collapse nobody knows because the judge didn't ask these questions mr harris went to is has to prove three things for cancellation yes to prove that he's been here for ten years the government stipulated that he had met that bird of immigration judge said he didn't know if he has to prove that he has good moral character which doesn't mean he's a great guy he doesn't have to prove he's a great guy he just has to prove that you know he hasn't committed any offenses or been convicted for any offenses that bar him from good moral character and that generally he's very integrated in society he's some benefits to society those seven letters talked about that the judge did consider them and then obviously he has to prove the requisite hardship to the qualifying relative which at the time of the hearing was as immoral the way you do that as a variety of questions you can think go back and work kenny provided for his family here his family said if you have any other way of coming back is there a bar for him coming back in the future we don't know the answers to these questions because the judge did not ask these questions the and therefore the board had no idea if the judge had a solid foundation for this decision or not and this court has no idea whether the judge or the board which just dealt with the hardship issue had a solid foundation for this conclusion or not and because of this lack of of record created below we're requesting that the case be remanded because the immigration judge appears to  simply decided he was not a fan of mr percy wanted we're asking at another immigration judge here his case we can present all of the relevant evidence we can make sure that all of these statements are translated because mr president this was never told they need to be translated in the first place and when you do it when you are represented by a lawyer immigration attorneys no you have to translate everything as a press once it's had no idea he didn't know that he was losing until the end when he said the judge said i'm sorry i thought you know you were never eligible for this you don't meet any of the standards at all which is weird because the judge the government stipulated that he meant the ten years he had a qualifying relative so the only arguments would be whether he met the good moral character standard based on some of his arrests which were not convictions i want conviction and whether he showed the hardship but we never really got a full record to address those things and that statement and the fact that the judge didn't consider some of the factors that were favorable to mr pearse want to suggest the judge did he kind of gotten a gut feeling about this supports that the immigration judge did not commit legally or he did not breach a statutory duty to develop the record in this case the petitioner was advised on two separate occasions that he had the burden of proof in this case to establish his ninety eight to one hundred the measure of record where the immigration judge was clear that the petitioner had elements to prove and he could bring for both witnesses and documentary evidence to prove his claim the petitioner had nearly three and a half years to finally go representation in this case he first sought cancellation removal november of two thousand and eleven and his master counter hearing wasn't until january twenty eighth two thousand and thirteen and his very first pleaded guilty and received a diversionary disposition when your honor the one that was where discharge your honor was with the printing guilty to drunken drinking alcohol what what does it mean when you developing his testimony on the hardship grounds the immigration does judge did develop the testimony regarding hardship to the petitioners qualifying relative issues how long ago was his conviction it was two thousand and seven well it's nine years to clarify on that point your honor regarding the good moral character standards that claim is not for this court today the board decided the petitioners eligibility for cancellation removal based on the hardship standard it wasn't required to go into the other elements required for cancellation because the so his so you say in the good good moral character it's not credible that one or the good moral character claim the continuous physical presence claims are not before this court today the board did not decide those issues on the merits it only focused on the hardship claim to the us citizenship daughter it didn't look to see if the criminal would he be entitled to a chance to argue with the good moral character issue the board was not required to look at your honor the it's very clear that the requirements are they balance these things the requirements for cancellation of removal or really have to so usually when they deport someone because of criminal activity which he doesn't seem to be recent criminal understeer i mean i really am not privy to the the agency's decision so don't know anything about why they decided to pick on him rather than one of the other eleven million but i don't think it's a matter of picking on him your honor that the agency does have a clear under hechler prosecutorial discretion decide to remove an individual from the united states of whom the overwhelming majority are simply ignored by the government and i'm just curious why they picked on him he doesn't seem particularly bad he has a prosperous business you know i don't understand why they why they picked on him that your honor i can't answer i have you know like i do you know based on the record of this case before this court that this case was state multiple times for possibly an exercise of prosecutorial discretion on removal the agency ultimately decided not to get the gist of that kind of thing and decided to remove him the reason why it's a it's it's a form of voluntary departure rather than be record is very clear today that the immigration judge did not breach is obligations owed to develop the record he gave him an opportunity to find counsel but history had three and a half years to find out how he was ask allegation no protests today is argued about these letters found in the record we do know that the immigration judge did consider for a law as to why he did or did not consider them the record does not say however it is very clear that that claim is not before this court today the petitioner is argue the immigration or immigration judge can gauge the procedural defect by not considering this evidence yet he never made that argument to the board in his appeal terms thanks again i would like to correct a couple of things the seven statements were brought to record to the attention of the board of immigration appeals in responded to brief they said that two witnesses who mr paris content brought with him to testify who the immigration judge did not call it's also perfectly normal to ask the parties who you want to call if you call them you listen to their testimony but if politiken doesn't call somebody the judge doesn't have any obligation to say it's a stance but that seems to be your judges duty extends beyond what a sitting judge might do they're not inactive participants their job is to develop the record take testimony look at evidence and he doesn't know and respond to what it what is going to happen if the judge says ok you got these people i demand that they testified and then at the end of the hearing the judge says you know they were really more hurtful to you than they were helpful and then we're going to have an appeal saying the judge should not have brought to the attention of the board and stated by mr president as to the judge which were not consider mr pearse what this did say well they didn't know me that well and it kind of makes sense why then very soon judge said laurie fine but the seven statements were directly were ready to go and yes i think in a pro se situation where you know when you when you read read the transcript it seems like this isn't going to be that tough bring some hardship evidence we'll talk about it and we'll figure it out and it was until  hearing that he realized he didn't bring enough one other thing i know my time is up now that the immigration judge's decision the board of immigration appeals supplanted or supplemented the immigration judge's decision they simply said we're not going to reach these are the things because we're reaching hardship when they supplement a decision the entire id's decision and board decision is probably in front of the court so everything is on the table at this point i disagree with responding ok well thank you very much