and we believe it was also an abuse of discretion and the you help me understand just a factual matter my understanding is that mr saying wrote to his congress person and twenty thirteen and then it was in twenty seventeen that congressman requested an expedited hearing in earlier hearing date is there anything in the record to show that they had communicated in the four years in between what was this just pending is the petition for the vava which is the violence against women's act and he's been helping them ever since in twenty thirteen come twenty seventeen when his case gets reopened so he had been communicating with a congressperson yes so there's i don't  in the record yes your honor this material is not it will go in the communications yes what we do know is when that letter was sent to immigration judge home that it included that there was a letter included also the twenty  thirteen address and it also included the twenty seventeen notice of hearing so those were the three documents that were sent to the immigration judge and that's where it was requested for an earlier court date you help me understand and i may be incorrect in my assessment so please point me to where i had an error my understanding was that zang  agreed to have this march twenty two thousand and seventeen hearing converted to a master calendar hearing and expressed a willingness to adjudicate on the merits that communication outside of the realm of representation of legal counsel it was an even signed by saying himself it should never gone past the clerk never got into the hands of the immigration issue or been rejected but because it was introduced into the record  was the immigration judge consider the motion and he granted that motion and therefore accelerate to the individual hearing and within that individual hearing is when the judge starts to learn about the facts of why he granted that motion in not be thrown into a trial as your first your argument is that he wasn't asking you to basically skip the preliminary procedural safeguard in place for a reason they're in place so what just happened zang doesn't happen you know we want to know what are the issues that are coming up what do we need to address at trial which is you have an injury here in the individual hearing what documents you present that every judge has its own local rules you know but they're not published they're not public aided so we only know that once we get into the master hearing house or an immigration judge wants us to present the case someone i arrest tax transcripts others just want the filings some of them don't like the medical records introduced into the record some of them like them to be handed to the ice attorney which is what happened here the circumstances where you think the massive hearing would be appropriate for resolving the case on the merits absolutely not your honor if the if the master hearing was meant for or such for a motion to terminate which is all the issues are  skip the master hearing and and i think i believe judge holmes should have known that noticing the record i mean taking it that judge holmes answered that motion having seen the record  things were missing within the record speaking of things that were missed maybe you could clear up some confusion i have also about the i six ninety three medical examination report you know in our record we've got something that looks like you know the copy of a sealed envelope that has a notation on it and you can't really tell what's inside it whether it's the complete missing document i have shared their privacy issues involved with medical examination but it's difficult for us as a reviewing court to determine whether that document was the document that was required was actually available and and presented in the be a focused on that as well that it was it was missing can you can you clarify yes so as i was stating to chief judge factual error we believe a legal ever was met given that they addressed the motion as if it was a legal representative but it was in fact an ex parte i should never been into the record it should never been addressed by the immigration judge they can also show that was without with not within the range of permissible decisions and we're arguing given that the whole procedure was in violation of due process which prejudiced him at that moment that he couldn't argue his case fully to the extent that he should have been that's with that was without not within the permissible range of those decisions to deny the continuance nothing further thank you process error a fundamental step in this is demonstrating substantial prejudice which is to say that he had to make some showing that the result in his case might be different and i believe judge carney got to some evidentiary points in this case  never submitted certain pieces of missing evidence that the agency identified he was given the time opportunity to do so indeed he submitted one hundred seventeen pages of additional evidence before the board it some of the materials he was  was supposed to submit weren't immediately available as he represents to that now and i think it seems that there was some confusion about how to present that medical record and i could see that the tax records also there were some clarification about and arrest that happened at one point and so those weren't all within his control the fact that he submitted you know over one hundred pages of other documents doesn't mean that the critical ones were available in the compressed time period  and your honor i would argue that there was no compressed time period here really because mr saying received his i three sixty approval on march thirteenth two thousand and thirteen and in that approval it notes that he would seek adjustment of status so at least from that very date in two thousand and thirteen he knew that he needed to prove the regulatory and statutory requirements for adjustment of status as well as showing that he was entitled to a favorable exercise of discretion and it's certainly reasonable for the agency to agency to expect someone to come forward asking for a favorable exercise of discretion from the government to present this type of evidence if you have a criminal to come forward with  a medical report from two thousand and thirteen and presented that in twenty at the time of this hearing several years later would that have been sufficient your honor i don't i don't believe so i believe it has to be within the previous calendar year but it is in the regulations stating that an applicant for adjustment of status is required to present this report and the reasoning is actually given in the regulation itself eight c f r section twelve forty five point five because it's determining compliance with  documents if the timing then was you know if you got notice in march of twenty seventeen that a hearing was going to be held of on certain character within two weeks later and he had to provide it updated information available only from third parties that that was what i refer to as a crimp compressed period but is that a wrong understanding only around or even even within assuming that he could not have possibly known before i believe it was march seventh two thousand and seventeen that he needed to have a medical record his tax transcripts an explanation for his criminal history and are at those circumstances in within i believe it was twenty one days by march twenty eighth twenty seventeen and there's some dispute about when his lawyer seventeen hearing individual hearing specifically was mailed to council on march seventh twenty seventeen so i'm saying that i believe that the lawyer was addressed averred that it was not received on march fifteenth but any that taught in any event your honor can i just so so i think part of the problem here is that expected that there would be preliminary master calendar hearing and not the individual hearing that took place that's part of the problem and that's part of the time compression issue because if the problem in our hearing master hearing had taken place in the normal courts then his argument is he would have had more time necessary to prepare for the case when you look at what happened that once the case goes to the b i a b i says that and correct me if i'm misunderstanding that provide even on appeal proof that his tax returns were actually filed fail to provide an adequate explanation as to the disposition of the criminal matter against him and proof of the completed medical examination yes but the the record looking at the record it does seem to suggest some proof of each of these things for instance the i r s tax transcripts from two thousand and thirteen to sixteen can one say that he didn't submit any any documents even on appeal your honor with respect to the medical records document all we have is a sealed envelope with handwriting on it that it's the i six ninety three alleging that it is the medical exams are supposed to and here i may be misunderstanding are supposed to be submitted in a sealed envelope your honor i can't speak to how the medical exam itself is actually submitted however  the medical exam documents should have been actually submitted to the board in this case the record doesn't exactly reflect that all it reflects isn't on bloke with some handwriting is that it's the i six ninety three certainly but we don't know what's in that pay could have been an empty envelope it could have been a different form we simply don't know and that's one of the problems here is is in the record the board looked at that evidence and said it's not here and for that reason even moving in to do two things allegation of interest well fact finding the board the board was looking at the evidence saying do you want to do we need to re man a because of this additional evidence that he's had the time and opportunity to submit after his hearing before the immigration judge and the board said this evidence would not have changed the result in his case in particular because where is the medical examination record we have this on bloke with handwriting on it but we have we have nothing else in your experience could you tell me master calendar hearing your honor i don't personally practice before the immigration court i only practice before the courts of appeals so i do not have any experience in that i'm perhaps a counselor could could provide some kind of  some kind of idea of that however i would i would state that there is no requirement anywhere that master calendar hearings and individual hearings be held separately and in this case saying all of the things that would have happened on a master calendar hearing if it were held separately were also held during the at the beginning of his individual hearing so if the immigration judge addressed his motion to continue or his i guess his motion for additional time to submit evidence the immigration judge took his submission of his eye for a five his application for adjustment of status and these are typically things that would happen reason i asked the question is that presumably it would be helpful to you case in some instance in some way if you could show that this is a prevalent practice your honor i honestly don't know because my because my practice is not before the immigration courts i cannot speak to two that i'm sure that i have colleagues that have practiced in the immigration courts before that that could potentially speak to that but i do not have that experience so i'm sorry i can't answer your question there thank you for that and have more time go ahead yes well  also i wanted to just briefly address the error the factual background of the alleged error in accelerating things hearing himself actually admits on the record that he requested that his hearing date be expedited things counsel never objected and instead insisted on proceeding things counsel agreed that the hearing was expedited at things request and you construe that with  a desire to do do without the master calendar your honor i'm going to refer to a hearing there's supposed to be two hearings your honor zings counsel states on page two hundred thirteen of the record we were hoping that we could educate in front of you today  i think that also could mean we were hoping to get the process begun and if there was more materials that we need to submit to reach that final result you would let us know and we could we could we could do that and i think that would certainly be a reasonable reading your honor had things counsel not also said on page two fourteen of the record that they wanted to proceed with his individual hearing that day because his client was here and they were willing to do that on page two nineteen are willing to go ahead and page to twenty we can go ahead we can go forward today your honor so at that point saying had already made his motion for additional time to submit evidence and he is in he had already been discussing taking testimony that day so there was no objection at that time and instead there was this insistence on proceeding proceeding with testimony on your own as i see it and willingness to it would be a better word than insistence but that is if more information needs to be provided in certain instances your honor the immigration judge may grant a continuance for good cause shown in several instances an immigration judge will actually issue an oral decision at the conclusion of the individual hearing which is after the the master calendar hearing in most cases likely in most cases but again there is no requirement anywhere that a master calendar hearing in an individual hearing must be held separately in this case without making any broad law in a circumstance where they master hearing substitutes for the individualized hearing one would hope that the immigration court might be more sensitive to various information the to be y form of relief and it is reasonable to expect someone who is asking for this active discretion who is that that needs to or needs to show that they're entitled to this act of discretion to show up prepared and even if they don't show up prepared to at least forward on that necessary evidence so that before before the board i mean appeals before the board can take some time and again additional evidence was submitted here it just simply understand that zing had filed something i understand that zing says he said that something but she says i'm willing to go forward as long as you give me the time to provide whatever is missing your honor and that's what fourteen to fifteen to eighteen to forty nine to fifty five she's requests she requests time to submit the documents to eighteen to fourteen to fifteen to eighteen to forty nine and to fifty  five thank you melissa within the record we can also see that the ice council wasn't prepared either for that they have hearing they do not have their file that's of a dent in page two thirty three of the record the background checks warrant  hadn't been done yet that's on page two thirteen of the record regarding respondents position on the that he was given notice since two thousand and thirteen since his approval so we can get it approved and that is the main reason we have a master hearing the master hearings we get to know what the charges are what our defenses are what what the judge in that case wants to know about this certain type of case and what he wants  chief judge you brought up there was the evidence that the b ice says was not provided was in fact provided they mentioned regarding criminal records he doesn't give an explanation as to what happened  how was criminal case was dismissed but that's not true those providing a page ninety nine of the record the taxes were provided on page one hundred seven through one forty two and the medical was provided in the  and that's your adversary says that the board just i guess had the image of the sealed envelope if i understood correctly it like we couldn't figure out what was whether there was anything inside it all that's correct in that can only imagine that's done is maybe to provide ice some sort of of service of what's going to be filed with you why are so they provided with ice for in it usually i practice with in the immigration can say it's usually ice we always provide it to ice which is the h s and then they provided to the judge at the individual hearing judge there's nothing wrong with this he looks like he's clean is good to go how could be an issue or actually was provided just seems to be this confusion well they were they they can't be sure it was brought outside of that photocopy in the statement from the attorney saying it was provided to ice on that outside  of that that's maybe they could have remained in there was enough there may be remain that record if that's all that was missing was the medical in the council says that he did provide it then remount it therefore but regarding all the other evidence that was all provided