paragraph of the work board's decision here about what it meant when it said it was deferring to the immigration judge we know what deference means because we do this work deference as a doctor and that was created by the supreme court for courts in deciding how to how much leeway to give an agency interpret in the statutes they've been tasked with interpreted courts defer to agencies because agencies are experts on the law that they have been tasked with interpreted and there's a series of cases the supreme court has issued or can defer to the immigration judge there is this alternative concept about adopting affirming the immigration judge's decision that is when the board agrees with it that it's so complete and accurate that there's no need to issue a new administrative decision w i first thing i see now maybe on the wrong order of the january twenty six twenty seventeen is where you the finest back living credibility unlikely events and they're clearly erroneous standard and i'm looking at the right remember is january twenty sixth twenty it's the third paragraph in the decision the first sentence ok so after they say in the second paragraph they get it right they were we agree statement of law where the plate correct correct ok but then when they get in you're going to do they say now we intend to defer to the immigration judge decision whatever the word you did what do you think they mean by decision do you think they're really saying that the immigration judge grew up on some stuff but even so we're not going to throw it tentative page eighteen of their briefing i don't think that's what the board did here because it issued a longer decision and said only on the waiver issue that part of the justice argues the board did not adopt in a firm that issued its own decision it's hard to know what the board intended to do i would argue the regulations are quite clear the board is not allowed to defer to the immigration judge decision and instead must in the regulation i think says use independent judgment discretion i hate to ask but sure they differ on adopting a firm if it really meant defer that's awful it's not allowed to do that the second issue is the nature of the immigration judge's decision because the question is whether they defer into we go and read the immigration judges decision and it gives every indication that this judge had a written cookiecutter decision she steps out of the courtroom at the end of trial changes that he to her and the him to she and brings it back in and says this is my decision the board corrects some of that that she knew this was a female she used to run run amok with the word doesn't correct all of it and what stands out to me as the most important is the sentence in the immigrations and judge's decision about testimony she gave about her family being safe in mexico so the toward the end it's it page fifty one of the administrative record to him from me going to the immigration judge says respondent testified that her other family members have not been physically harmed or tortured since he left mexico the problem with sentence is that testimony was never given because that question was never asked you have a very truncated two to three question hearing and so the question that is why is this in the decision well i mean ok let's i think everybody will agree she used to form i mean i don't know the government even argues that and is clearly wrong so what do we do though with the fact that the board may just it's kind of a cobbled to sit in i agree with you there at one point they say we're deferring was a case where the judge had gotten it wrong but then the board on appeal had said we looked at the country reports for china it was a venezuelan case and we don't think are at risk and this court said look the board just missing the country that's not enough to reverse i don't think that's what happened  immigration judge does the fact finding on the border of use it for clear error did the board even review that sentence that the board find those fact finding the judge found to be clear error and that's not clear from this record because the board didn't address that  board also says that while putting all that aside random assuming that decisions are totally screwed up you haven't really argued that she's entitled to and that you have to make some argument that that makes a difference so that gets to the arthur issue which is that the hearing is so short the judge doesn't ask their specific questions the judge needed to ask to make a decision on that i don't think the judge has to spend a specific amount of time or ask exactly eleven questions and then you've met you process but there are things in the asylum analysis that are not contained in the asylum form that you have to ask about that's what the board says in that matter of fifi case and then this court talked about and all corey one of them for example is can you relocate internally in your country the form doesn't ask that question a for my thirty nine the immigration judge in her written decision says you didn't meet your burden of proof that you can't internally relocate and the order affirms that the problem is that question wasn't asked at trial and the form and the papers don't talk about it wrapped this this point out is that there's a due process issue here that the hearing isn't full enough to actually make those determinations and finally the supreme court says in the a cardi versus fantasy case that if the rules require a hearing and you didn't get a complete in correction as did the interpreter when it was read back to her then she also said that the statement she made for the asylum officer in the earlier credible fear determination were true and correct then the immigration judge asked herself a pointed questions about that asylum application officer his hearing is just an initial screening mechanism essentially the immigration judge decision you know the immigration judges doesn't more fulsome review but also i would say there were the at the end of the hearing the immigration judge serious she asked her to open ended questions asked her twice i'm sure there was anything else she'd wish to add and she said no both times and i think that's the crux of our prejudice argument is that we still have no no answer as to what additional issue would have raised i mean didn't say anything else and i mean even if we look back again to the asylum officer interview the same thing was presented to her she presented the substantially the same story to the asylum officer and again at the end was asked was there anything else she feared guatemala and she said no it's just this neighbor then for the immigration judge so at this point i feel like the record or the government posits a record has been she has been afforded a fundamentally fair opportunity to validate it and you know i understand the concerns about the number of question she was asked maybe the hearing could have been longer but the claim if you look at bottom it's a very very simple claim she was being sexually harassed by her neighbor she refused his advances she later reported that he was attempting to rape a child apparently a child and then after she reported that rape the police came to the scene and then after that the neighbor sent two men to threaten her for money and extorted her or attempted to extort her that hasn't changed when asked why he did this shooting said that he was sexually attracted to  her so we that's just not a basis for sap sexual attraction is not one of the protected grounds well it's really two prong it's the brevity of the hearing and then as all the errors decisions well i understand that and that's the point of the board of immigration appeals to is to look at the record and to make you know to to to reconsider not reconsider both to consider the records or the errors that will point out in the board did that the board discharge that duty if you look at that what do they mean by deferring to the change well i agree that that's not entirely they say you know we uphold the dop denial of silence because she didn't pass time rising flood persecution and then after that they say she still hasn't shown a well founded fear because her fear is not objective a reasonable speculative and a fear of crime doesn't meet the burden of proof  then they also independently make a captive terminations and you know i understand the concern about saying that there was no testimony about the family members of the government is going to admit that but the board doesn't rely on that and deny her catholic ation the board says she's never been tortured and guatemala and i think she would i don't think she contends that she was ever tortured that's part of the capital mission and also she hasn't show that the government would consent or acquiesce to her torture by this neighbor and i don't think i don't think there's there's anything on the record that would dispel that that's supported by the record so i think yes the immigration judge did make errors in her decision by the board when presented with those errors was able to correct them and say even based on that we still believe that the denial of the applications was correct your honor i just would also like to address mr howard's argument about administrative exhaust exhaustion that was filed in the second brief in this case  exhaustion the doctrine of exhaustion is about putting the agency on notice of what the issues are not about writing a novel or an exit just this about the arguments i agree it should have been longer but i think the brief to the board exhausted the issue is a good sign of that is that the board process issue clearly the board knew that due process was a claim he was making and then finally i understand the department's argument about this not being a formal policy the two thousand i possibly talk about our second brief but the  mention the second board decision on our view merely says this is a motion to reconsider these arguments all were either previously arranged or could be race could have been race so we deny to kind of reconsider if the court were to entertain the attorney general's arguments that this isn't a real fourteen and seventy dash twenty six sixty two are submitted for decision