could cause a fresh whole burden that every motion to continue must meet and if it is met and the motions within the immigration judge discretion to grant phrases not further defined by regulation or statute the agency his long term partner as she underwent recovering from one or more surgeries and here's a problem i have you know he said that was the reason and he said she might have to have more surgeries but as i understand the record he didn't provide any thing in terms of from doctors saying what the further surgery may be none of those supporting documentation to support that statement yes i understand that you are what i believe kurt is council meeting offered to prove this immigration judge decided that it was unnecessary assumed the veracity of the claims and then went ahead and denied the motion under the assumption that counsel's assertions were true and i think that this cordially doing the same thing was the problem is that so you're saying that the that the court accepted that that was a legitimate reason to stay and that he was entitled to say further no one after the court is given him a year no what i'm saying is i believe the court accepted as true the fact that the wife had one or more surgeries to undergo and then under that assumption went ahead and denied the motion concluding that that  lack of that that that was not good cause so when he made the motion when counsel made the motion he did not attach the documentation that's correct it was an oral motion you said what if that was knows where it was i'm sorry what was that you did did you say his wife no it is not his wife it is a partnership it is a long term relationship there were marriage that's correct and i think that this medical hardship should be he could have done that yarn could have went to the other agency and asked for a stay of removal but he also could have asked for ten months and that's what he tried to do an additional i think as a matter of practice it would have been very difficult for him to now if this medical hardship is not the cause but i think it would conflict with the plain meaning of good cause an exceptional circumstances another defined term under the regulations and the act would also create i think in an appropriate incentive to fail to appear and later try to reopen proceedings and both of these are possible because you know the immigration and nationality act provides for reopening the recession in absentia order following failure to appear upon demonstration of exceptional circumstances sectional circumstances is described as are defined as circumstances beyond non citizens control and includes serious illness of a spouse parent or child and i think the situation presented by chris have a larger it does not specifically enumerate that but it is a non exhaustive list and i think for many people there is little difference between a marital relationship and a serious wong term relationship and what differences there might be between the two i don't think that's enough to take it outside the scope of exceptional circumstances but what you're mainly describing is methods of delay pretty much humanitarian and personal concerns in his life specifically making sure his his long term partner was adequately cared for ok and i think that the situation he described before the immigration judge the serious  medical conditions that require surgery fits within this higher standard the exceptional circumstances standard and that of course i think the medical conditions are beyond his control and and i guess the problem i have i understand lee and ministry of the law judge said well it still wouldn't be enough the girlfriend having surgery booked for example if it was complicated surgery or there was no one to care for her or sort of extenuating circumstances you might be closer to the mark in terms of this but just the mere fact of having surgery is i mean that's a challenge for you  it's not quite exceptional circumstances i think it's close at least and if it's close i think it's going to meet the good cause standard which as a matter of plain meaning are when their interpretation is as low risk his gallbladder surgery right i believe so have pretty routine i mean this wasn't like you know some serious cancer surgery or brain surgery or something like that with that with potential for lots of complications that is true and even if it's not enough to meet the exceptional circumstances standard i still think it's close to it and enough to give need to good cost under which is really the standard he needs to meet in this case now if percents yano does meet the exceptional circumstances standard but not the good cost and or is it the incentive for him and others is to fail to appear knowing their motion to continue will be not and the remedy thereafter for them is to try and reopen and even if it's questionable whether they're going to reach the exceptional circumstances standard and qualify for that motion the incentive still going to be there for many people in removal proceedings at the end of the day many of them have to leave the country whether that's under removal order or an order a voluntary departure there is some benefit to a voluntary departure order but it's not much of one if you have no means of getting back into the united states rest of his representation which were remaining on united states just long enough to care for a spouse because the i j a abuses question and the harmless error principle is not going to prevent us from proceeding here morning may please the court where you minnick representing the respondent the immigration judge as the line of a second continuance was not arbitrary or a departure from established policies and thus it was not an abuse of discretion titian or conceded through counsel that he was in eligible for relief from removal another continuance would not have had any effect on the final outcome of the proceedings and a continuance was not warranted simply to forestall the conclusion of remo but the immigration judge did accept the fact that she was going to have gallbladder surgery and took that into account the immigration judge did did hear counsel's proffer but the the board specifically in denying the the appeal specifically faulted a petitioner for not having provided evidence of his claims the board specifically denied the appeal on that basis on the basis right i saw that in their in their decision but the immigration judge you know accepted that explanation but went on to say even if that were true didn't think it was enough essentially that's correct  cited in the forest cision in this case are require the submission of evidence in support of a continuance requests but do you think the immigration judge kind of let him down the primrose path by saying i accept comes and he says i want this continuance i've got paperwork i've got you know i want it for purposes of the proffer he had a proffer i saw me at documentation of something when he came before the immigration judge an immigration judge as i understand it said it's not necessary that you you know file anything but you tell me what record it well i don't i'm misreading it i don't buy i misunderstood i don't think you're missing the record honor but i don't think there's anything in the i'm looking at the record at eighty two to eighty four i just don't see anything in the transcript which would support an assumption that he did have those the the requisite documentation immigration judge somehow are stopped him i agree that the immigration asked in the primitive we ask him for documents but there's nothing in the transcript that i see that to suggest that he had the documents there and was ready to submit them so what did the immigration judge say exactly when he said i want to make this proffer for the continu of do you have documentation or do you want to make a proper about the nature of the surgeries the next decade eighty five of the record council makes a proper nor proper but that's in relation to eligibility for voluntary departure with respect to his continuance requests there's just nothing to indicate that he had the documentation where is he  now where is he now i don't know your honor will you hear on or he i don't i don't know if he left on his own or or if he's still in the united states i don't know a notice a custody determination indicating that he was released that's back when the notice of appear was initially issues in september twenty seventh i don't believe he's been detained since then because you go through all this stuff about when a delay and he's a pretty good delay or look like he's got a lot of time or out of the the notice of appear to the notice to appear the charging document in their move the proceedings was issued in september two thousand and eleven it was about eighteen months before he even appeared before the immigration judge in april of two thousand and thirteen immigration judge gave him a year simply to assess his eligibility for relief from april april two thousand and thirteen to april two thousand and fourteen and then he's had another year and a half since since the immigration judge decision regarding petitioners exceptional circumstances argument lacks jurisdiction to consider that in any event his horrigan is premised on the assumption that he would somehow satisfy the exceptional circumstances standard in subsection the one of the statu and to the extent that again the record contains no evidence whatsoever of the claims of his girlfriend's medical issues on which is continuous was based to the extent that he submitted no evidence there's nothing in this record to suggest that he would satisfy that burden and he can't make that showing the denial of the additional continuous in this case was harmless because the consider another continuance would not have had any effect on the final outcome proceedings and we asked the courts in that petition immigration judge could have denied the motion for these reasons as a matter of discretion but a good cause relates more to the rationale or the reasons for the continuing heavy immigration judge said well i mean when was the goal of the records not entirely clear whether it happened just before that during or was to occur just after but i believe it was it was either to occur shortly before the