maris lis i would like to reserve three minutes for a bottle thank you for granting oral argument allowing it to go forward i just want to make sure did you receive the twenty jailer i filed two days ago of status the seemingly an insurmountable obstacle has been getting the board to to reopen the case so that we could could get the adjustment of status in front of application before the judge my argument has four points first i just want to know typographical error that i made on page fourteen in my reply i mistakenly said the i one thirty was approved by the asylum office but it should be the united states citizenship and immigration service second i want to explain why my appeal is so narrow  i will highlight the two leading reasons why i think that the court to grant a petition for review of course everything is in my briefs but i just want to highlight those two things and and for as i will tell you the shocking  well i i think that i can have a good decision for two reasons first of all there was a legal error in the board's decision which i pointed out which is that they took into account the adverse credibility finding which which was part of the government's opposition to my motion to reopen i mean yeah i do and i don't an adverse credibility finding is not a bar to other applications of relief and the third circuit in a footnote explains that when a person gets a frivolous finding there is a statute that actually says that a frivolous finding meaning that the person made a mirror tiriel misrepresentation in their application that that's a total part of the relief but other denials such as that based on adverse jurisdiction stripping provisions which said that if an immigration judge and the b i find that there was insufficient corroborating evidence then that decision is insulated from federal review so the adverse credibility decisions are now insulated from federal review if if there was a finding of insufficient corroborating evidence so if the or is relying on the you know income hard about whether they should exercise discretion on something that was on review ball that an alien can never get reviewed then it lacks you know fairness before the real i d act at least you can get such a determination reviewed by a federal court which is why i didn't appeal the original decision to this court it would have been a waste of time since the immigration judge found insufficient corroborating evidence and then the border firm that i believe that you could never have overturned the decision because of that adverse credibility finding but and second reason what we wish is actually why i think you can't consider the new evidence is because apart from the motion to apart from the fact that i added additional evidence with the motion to reconsider like sort of seeing a sewer sponte reopening i also asked for administrative closure and there has have been developments in the law on mistreated closure closure and other words i made a motion to reconsider and a motion to reopen sue a spontaneous and the third motion for ministry of closure and ministry of closure is governed by basis of government opposition and so the government could you know could have been opposed and now you can say why there are opposing and or have a flimsy reason to oppose and and the like literally took away jurisdiction from the immigration judge important to really an object object object of lee and independently decide the motion just because the adversary said i oppose but then matter of that came in and said you can the board or the yes but but i have great news that the visa petition was approved so now he only needs to have the second step further the way that it works is that there's a two step process one step is that the u s c i s the immigration service verifies the relationship between the petitioner and the beneficiary so they verify that a husband wife have a real marriage where that parent go straight to the agency and get our interview and he gets his green card another thing that the board could do is they could send it to the immigration judge the immigration judge who mistreated lee close the case and my client can go and get his green card for the want to embrace the judge himself can give the closure and that would have allowed my client in order to get to get his green card in front of the agency or or it now that the one thirty is actually approved the the board probably would just send the case back to the immigration judge and let it get sorted out below i probably i probably don't need them to administrative closure at this point but they could if they could do it or they could send it to the judge for the judge to consider doing it or or h please the court clear workman for the attorney general the respondent in this case position has appeared before the board several times but this court only reviews the denial of his motion to reconsider as he acknowledged today f show that the board abused its discretion in determining that he had not identified a factual early legal error in its decision denying his motion to reopen because he had provided insufficient evidence that his most recent marriage was born of petitioner had sought reopening to apply for adjustment of status based on having married his second united states citizen wife two years after the immigration judge found him not credible in his removal proceedings with to reconsider petitioner impermissibly sought to introduce additional evidence and also receded the arguments that the board had considered and rejected with his motion to reopen to the extent the petitioner's most recent  this well your honor the i want thirty immigrant visa petition has been a it was approved after the government filed their answering our answering brief in this case it's evidence that the marriage is bona fide but that wasn't available to the board at the time when it was determining the motion to reopen therefore it had to apply the factors and it did not make illegal presence in this country but he fails to acknowledge that there is a waiver for that bar if you can show extreme hardship to your united states citizen spouse and there's also another who year bar for aliens who have been ordered removed but he can there's also an exception to that if he applies to your work i believe so your honor i'm not entirely sure it's a pretty sympathetic a story in some respects your honor but not in all respects because  he well he was found not credible in his original case and and also he originally stated that he would bring three cross breeding witnesses and then he never brought those witnesses and then while he was immigration proceedings in fact he had married his first united states citizen wife before he was put in proceed ings the bona fide nature of his marriage and the board didn't actually either the board in its motion to reopen was only deciding whether he had provided clear and convincing evidence that  to establish the bona fide marriage there the regulation that's applicable lists several categories of the kinds of evidence that someone should submit if they want to show a bona fide marriage it's also available on us c i s his website and one of those now of course not every alien can show those all of those criteria but one of them is to have affidavits of people who do the marriages bonafide and he did not do that with his motion to reopen it that was something that he had no wish to know your honor he submitted them later with his motion to reconsider he submitted them later with his motion to reconsider but of well three reasons your honor first there's a statute that specifies what someone should do in a motion to reconsider and that is only alleging errors of law or fact in the prior decision and the regulation the reader it's the same point and then this court has also before the board because it was only determining whether the evidence was sufficient whether it was clear and convincing and the evidence and pretty much admitted his motion to reconsider that his evidence was insufficient because he said that he didn't understand all the kinds of evidence that he needed and then of course with his motion to reconsider he tried to submit an overwhelming amount of evidence but that could not be considered because this court has recognized aliens who get married while they're in removal proceedings or afterward they have one opportunity to apply for adjustment of status and in this case when they have a final order of removal to move to reopen and they have to show clear and convincing evidence of a bona fide marriage and this is in part because there is essentially a presumption of fraud be but it absolutely your honor with one motion to reopen he has to get all of his evidence as much as he can possibly gather and put it in that one first motion to reopen because otherwise he just has regulation or it's a regulation reconsideration the board explicitly stated that it had considered petitioners arguments in his motion to reopen and the accompanying reply and he merely reiterated these arguments in his motion to reconsider without establishing any error in the prior decision in the materials the second twenty eight j letter and other materials that were filed around eleven thirty on wednesday evening he again repeats his contention that the boy did not consider all of his arguments and might not have received his reply but he said minutes of decisions that were reassured because of clerical are still errors and makes an assumption that a clerical error was in his words probable because of the volume of the board correspondence and this court should disregard this argument because it wasn't exhausted and these decisions are not part of the administrative record and in any event this argument ignores the fact that the work was date stamped and included in the administrative record and the board denying reconsideration explicitly stated that it had to consider the arguments in the reply and the petitioners reliance on the publi well your honor you still have to deny the petition for you in part and dismiss it and in remaining part for lack of jurisdiction and he event has the opportunity to process his adjustment of status reopen to allow him to attempt to adjust status because if he is just agrees to join a motion to reopen the time in numerical limits don't apply now of course the board still have difference if we agree with you put in the opinion that we think he should be permitted to do just what you think is what you mentioned here oh we're doing good if we advise the administrat anybody's look at the case and they just they don't care what they don't care no no your honor i'm sure they would take your views and considerations into account but ultimately they can have their own reasons for discretion in denying the motion to reconsider just the motion to reconsider and we have to do that based on the evidence that was before whe before it on the motion to reopen and the the question in the abuse of discretion standard is whether whether the board abused its discretion in in determining that there was no legal or factual error in its prior decision denying reopening so you only look at the decision denying reopening for that limited purpose or thank you have to run through my points very quickly and one thing that the government said was that there is one other thing they could do they could seek a joint motion to reopen for the purpose of adjustment of status i have already done that  the government opposes it and not only did i see prosecutorial discretion from the local detroit immigration council but i actually put in a request to the principal legal advisor in washington d c which i only do like once or twice a year because i don't want my you know my good credit to right out there because i thought that this was like my most like sympathetic case of the year and they also said no and they particularly said it was because of the adverse credibility determination but if when i sit down this court strongly recommends that the government come to mediation with me in the with the six circuit court mediator i would be totally open to that  the government said that you know we did not present strong enough evidence initially and that you know afterwards we submitted affidavits and we could have done that beforehand and i brother their sister their you know sister in law said some nice things about them so i mean not to say that we shouldn't have given affidavits at the beginning but i don't think that you know i don't think that that was really a valid comments or she  promised no she said that we promised three witnesses at the trial and that the way this is didn't come to the trial and and that was what the basis of that was part of the basis of the adverse credibility and at the the after we were more than three affidavits and that was later on so and you know people don't have control over like you know witnesses so you know that you know that just happen wasn't that we consciously said we're not going to do affidavits because nobody cares about them it was more like we had seventeen pieces of evidence that we considered were extremely strong and we thought that they really stood on its own and maybe it's because when you're sitting in an office with your clients and you see how real their marriage is how affectionate they are you're likable person is a real marriage and like look i have seventeen things you know and then you know do you do i go for twenty five things you don't but you felt it was a very very if a person can apply for a waiver but it takes a long time because a lot of money my clients run out of money and also you have to me a very high burden on hardship which you know  get lots of cases where there's hardship are cheap is always a problem to prove and it's under the state department decisions or unreviewable thank you thank you very much