MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
told the immigration judge that arrest happened on august fifteenth when you read the record i think the immigration judge you can see you spoke in a lot of general terms of her and her decision in terms of her exasperat pretty frustrated with the specificity of the specificity of his testimony and the consistency of it and i think that's presented to beginning part of her decision where she represents these general reasons for being frustrated but then in the end of her fact has made a claim for asylum or if it's past prosecution there whether the government can rebut the presumption of a well founded fear there are a lot of other issues that the attorney general has had an opportunity to look at and to do that in the first instance and would be appropriate
permanent resident even though there's nothing in the statute and nothing in the regulations that would indicate a loss of that refugee status refugee protection and even though the individual who applies for and becomes a permanent resident is not notified in any way that he loses to his protection as a refugee or this question of course is extremely important to mr time and his family are disappointing here in the united states when he was two months old he's lived here in the united states all his life and has actually never even  immigration service or department of homeland security is handling these refugee cases in particular i believe what it would mean is that a person a refugee such as mr stern who suffers a conviction would be eligible for consideration of a a waiver or a refugee waiver argument is that before mr sun can be deported from the united states and i suppose that this court issued a ruling to that effect before a refugee is deported from the united states that person would have to person was not a refugee he was not in fact a refugee at the time that he or she was admitted into the united states the second mechanism for removing a refugee from the united states is to bring the person in front of an  immigration officer and consider whether or not that person ought to be given a waiver archaeologically meaning the united states as a refugee if that we were the refugee waiver is denied under under those circumstances that individual requirement of exhaustion is that section two forty two the exhaustion requirement applies where a person seeks judicial review under section two forty two that's a different type of review and there's a different scope of review than what you're going  and particularly because those provisions that eliminate this course jurisdiction review discretionary determinations x that are refugee decisions and so we would submit that the discretionary determination goes perhaps higher birds imposed by congress upon those who have achieved the cover the green screen card status and in especially if you've been convicted of so called aggravated felony this is eliminated most forms of relief reaction is pages corpus then there is merely a credential exhausted and i hesitate to respond to your honest question because i have to confess i'm not satisfied the best necessarily the department withdraw applications for some of the relief and these two to run expeditiously and there's not really a reason or justification for taking this type of a case to the board when again when issue has already been resolved it's it would i would suggest it's perfectly appropriate for a person in that situation rather than filing a futile appeal to the board is to go in not for direct review of course but under hideous where you have a limited you know basically you have a limited argument that you can make if i can respond to the question about whether or the united states basically the government's position is that by becoming a permanent resident you're worse off than you were as a refugee
i really did thank you
to impeach process within the statute of limitations that court that made the summary judgment decision received this case after it had been handled for almost two years fight officer as opposed to d c or deputy commissioner yeah but in a prison environment hearing officer can be a correctional captain adjudicating at this point or violation and that there's some material which i don't have front of me at the e r seventy which apparently connects up a joe with sufficient who identify in that earlier complaint is that response well ok my response is that you would have to use the documents in a late fall complaint to make that connection and it's clear that trot was not named in the first file in the first action once again i'm not saying was right or wrong don't you have a situation where a second judge under the law of the case doctrine or whatever theory i thought i must respect that or notice has been taken judicial notice of the name of trot at the time of the court's order was improper because he wasn't a party to the case yet he wasn't served until two thousand o and further that the second i inferred complaints were filed outside the statute of limitations well the court could have done that but you know that would was three pretty the complaints filed in the action and it does get rather confusing and maybe some of the confusion was created by you know overstepping you know the discretion that versus lew
understood the government form right if it takes around three years so what you're asking for specific case be stayed for perhaps three years while the motion is pending the secretary well i  director i have a question about something different it looks as though this this fellow never did make out much of a case for asylum or or withholding funds but it looks as though this fellow never did make out much of a case for asylum or withholding however country conditions keep changing afghanistan just keeps changing and it's he keeps piling applications for motions to reopen based on the changes and the cia's latest decision turns them down because of yet another change throwing out the taliban and i'm sympathetic to the argument that the v a should've given him a chance to brief the case about whether throwing out the taliban eliminates his problems on the other hand i can't figure out what his problems are realized that it's hard for me to figure out why he needs asylum will  see what about the other half of that one half of their decision to strike me they've got a real problem under castillo viagra so that is the second part right the other half of their decision says you never made out a case in the first place but the board has this line in there moreover we know that the taliban regime is no longer in power in afghanistan as such there's been a fundamental change of circumstances such that respondent no longer has a well founded fear i wrote a decision take notice of that regime may have to give notice in an opportunity to be heard to the petitioner on how the change of regime may affect his asylum claim even though the change of regime itself is something of which notice can be taken without notice and a hearing traditional notice or administrative notice nevertheless the effect of the change of regime requires notice and a hearing and i don't understand why this fellow wouldn't get a notice and a hearing of the taliban and installation of the cars i regime might or might not affect his asylum claim once again as you point out earlier sir there's two parts to the soviets in there and then and then you had more or less mujahideen anarchy and then you had the taliban and now you have karzai but just focusing and so as far as the second portion of the boards i think him on the ground that he wasn't at hand demonstrated anything that the taliban pushed you to anyone that they viewed as contrary it was almost indiscriminate so what i'm thinking is the secular views was really we claim because how do they know he's got secular views if he has any sense of just keep his mouth shut and behave himself and dress like he has religious views the whole middle east you can tell people's religious opinions by their hats just wear the right hat look religious and he'll get away with it they don't know his private
thank you very much for honor i would like to focus in arguing this case on the factual issues only because they may resolve the issues both have been brought  shelling on that new address that yes wrote in fact i was somewhat surprised to see that or even may i've got cites to the record below in which we'll argue and evidence all of the elements that would support the litigation nd the record contains numerous pieces of evidence an argument supporting our position there is no local evidence or witnesses here in california and if we declaration from the representative of standard chartered thirty two through thirty four attesting to the fact that there are no relevant witnesses or documents in california in the possession of  in the in the shuffle here which is even if mayhem can show the court that it has personal jurisdiction that the court has personal jurisdiction over the burrell a defendants they haven't quite yet won a reversal of the  defendants there is actually no allegation anywhere that standard chartered engaged in or directed brollies conduct with respect to how it conducted the receivership we made this point in our in our brief of page ten the court will not find a single word about this in either of mayhem's briefs and i did the opening brief nor the reply brief nowhere did they say anything at all about the personal jurisdiction over the bank nowhere in fact in the complaint there is only one sentence about the bank  continuing conversion point about all of the defendants if i could just make one point which is for purposes of all jurisdiction purposes the question is not whether there is a continuing tort but whether the plaintiffs injury would have happened but for the foreign conduct and here it's clear from the just brief that if you look at the opening brief the page three it's absolutely clear that if there was a conversion here it happened when the vessel within malaysia or indonesia nothing that happened in california had any occurs where the wrongful possession is exercised and the place where their own full possession was exercised for three weeks straight was in california it in richmond california so
poor we do want to point out we have some really great runners who show up for the five k we're very pleased to have a number of runners who have said course records on other courses and one other race use one the philadelphia marathon twice the main marathon as well as other race of events and we're really pleased at dan is back today we have some other great runners who will be running side by side with dan and we look to see if we can break course record which is fourteen minutes in fifty nine seconds so on our course record on this measure of course is under fifteen minutes just thirty pre registered runners from last year have been assigned the lowest numbers we're also very fortunate to have some of the world class runners with us today and we likewise want to make sure that they're able to be near the front or closest to the starting line also anyone with this trial or anyone with the stronger we do ask that you get to the back of the pack and maintain a safe distance safe clearance between yourself and others we appreciate your help with this now the fastest that someday we'll maybe have a statue of dan here i don't know dana has qualified for the olympic trials as a marathon runner he is one the philadelphia marathon twice the main marathon and multiple other race of events we feel very fortunate to have dan with us here again today i didn't notice ryan mcconnell came to us here as well and ryan is our clueless record holder fourteen minutes and fifty nine and so again we feel very fortunate to have some of these some of new england's best winners here joining us today now i do know that the we do not use number one kno five k runner uses pip number one that was brandon ty school baseball number retired by time on high school however i do know that all the kids and the kids race they all wear number one ok we're getting set we have
work and this is really the crux of the issue in terms of accident she testified that during these two days of increased work she was required to then shape these cardboard boxes as well as lift bakery items which we have less than five  pain that would get so seated with a tendon tear or a ligament tear and that she was still capable of full duty work given that he had examined her  accident or a causal relationship between her work and a legit accident the medical care that was awarded would be unreasonable and unnecessary in regards to her date of x then it should also be noted that all doctor of coping  disability benefits are owed to workers under the act on if they're totally incapacitated from work in the alternative if the petitioner work to prove an injury with substantial evidence it would be our position that so we may respond that the accident did occur and that is cause we related to the defendant's employment the defendant was credible and her testimony regarding the repetitive nature of her job she testified that she worked twelve hours those were divided that her injuries stem from two days of extra work which is a not what her testimony as and not what the records are filed her testimony is that she already had this pain from the paid of nature of her job and that pain was like aggravated by the extra work that she had to perform and people twenty their own wage statements that they introduced into evidence actually support and cooperate the testimony of the defendant regarding the hour she worked the r professional opinion which your response to the doctor crime lab only examined the petitioner one time for fifteen minutes by his own admission he is a spine surgeon he only deals with other extremities   to deal with the injury defendant and her her history her employment history and description of her job come to the conclusion that she she is in need of surgery and he hopes he does that not initially but he also does an injection and having that still is an indication that it's not that the arrived was completely unremarkable there were findings on the m r i and i think that that supports dr paddings approach to the situation in which he actually radiologist to simply review his images he never physically examined the defendant in this case so by saying that his his opinion or his reading of the images as an opinion i think that based on her lack of improvement in conservative treatments i don't think that i think that dr happiness assessment as cracked i think that it is more than just post traumatic bruising she had two injections the accident happened in april there is not a recommendation for surgery until november where she exhausted all conservative care she is still in pain she would still like the surgery  commission would be in that position because they're judging the credibility of the witnesses as well as and they're in the position to give more weight to the treat and if there are no further questions i've asked the decision the other don't believe you're
contract that allowed rather to say here's the meeting of the minds of these parties that it couldn't be any more clear that if you do x that equals just cause this language doesn't have that light that accepts this language borrowed from other collective bargaining agreements but but it is hopefully not something that's pulled off the shelf or that the second point to made is that if we take away the paper comes up a lot cause in some way changes the landscape if the president believes that they've got an unusual set of contract terms that limit and in some fashion that is the time to do so but failing to do that and the parties are entitle to provide it to whether the discipline was contractually permit if that kind of trip contains another measuring stick if somebody believes that it is something other than that that's the moment the framing of the issue to present those disputes could be are treated to decide whether the in that case the company waived its right by the issue submission and this court made clear that one should be reluctant to conclude that the parties instead intended by the general magwitch of the submission to confer broader authority upon the arbitrator but not confined by the collective bargaining agreement in which i don't think we can read this as saying that that discretion includes firing someone for not having just carlos what it does it limits the inquiry that just cause and we can sort of hear what the arbitrator could have done he could have said i don't believe that the group committed the access charge he could have said i think all of us were lots of witnesses are lying he could have found some sort of procedural due process issue in the investigation where he cannot do is agree with the hospital on its findings and agree that the arbitrator found that in fact this was a group three violation that's correct but then decided not to give the penalty provided for poop three years where you have to go beyond math if i've understood correctly you can tell me that way and it's recommended disciplined group three that decision is left entirely to the employer and can that that necessarily lead to us to say that the employer's promise that it would be reasonable him gauging who are so disciplined in other words whether to go along with the recommended disposition
ward render a more informed decision on the issue in other words if we are for what the district court has done you will not have lost the opportunity to flesh out the facts and why your quiet is public officials from having to engage in the process of litigating against when they have not they are not responsible for the conduct for which this litigation has started in this case the facts are sufficient to put the court in the september twelfth letter does not command and action by the measure they ate suggest this action and they asked the mayor to ask why because of the puerto rico  reached by the program's governing board but that doesn't that doesn't make go away start with a yes or no yes your honor the letter states that its that's correct but your position is that the members of the governing more have nothing to do with her  l well yes they do but the problem of the issue is that based on the on the on the on the scenario no look at the legal scenario they could not know that their condo would would end up in the in the interlocutory appeal so it seems odd for us to just jump the gun and and decide the question about whether this is a paralegal question before we even just have given the chance for the district court to weigh in on whether it perceives there to be factual issues in play whether it perceives there to be a factual question there or not as it didn't discuss it at all so wouldn't that suggest since we're not supposed to take issues that the district court perceived to have a factotum paula had the right thing to do we're going to make him remain and let the district personnel issues of the head start program but they don't have the authority not the responsibility if the september twenty eighth two thousand and eleven letter to ms fault go tell her that the board had recommended removal no it says that it was there or the situation to remove or but but but the fact this that the border even even if that's what the let of the at the time they do that action you mean to say even if we posit that they had the understanding that she would be fired which i know you maybe you don't agree with but if even if we thought that what they lacked was an understanding that she would be fired without following the procedural protections there's no way they could know that at that time certainly enough the letter doesn't suggest that and nothing in the record suggests that they could have had no knowledge that would be the end result of their actions because again under the law it is the man who had the responsibility to receive the recommendation and then act upon it following the puerto rico which requires that before the mayor  ok thank you think she should be fired you've already said that does not amount to her being fired because the mayor has to sign off correct he is you know ok so since the mayor has decided off at what point is she entitled to procedural
than from their relatives physical harm and the evidence was found to be compelling police officer who was afraid to intervene had back out downstairs in the police car didn't do anything back he told her he could not help her quote i cannot he explains that there is basically a spectrum it's a matter of degree on the one hand your harassment on the other hand pleasure persecution and the issue is what happened here not who did it and what happened here he says all those lines he mentioned several to the harm by family members you're correct that there are a couple stray comments where he can accurately describes the harm by family members but there's no holding by the i j a that from harm by family members is automatically excluded  there than here more there than other countries but this court has made clear that racial discrimination does not amount to persecution and again you have then the and then in full cocaine it's a recurring theme and i'm not trying to condone what happened in th what happened this case is regrettable and unfortunate i'm just saying that all the various minor incidents don't amount to persecution and if you remember in this case the groups were turned voluntarily to fiji after a very short stay in this country concrete threats one was a threat by family members you know you'll be lucky to get home alive friends said something similar those threats are more concrete but those threats were made in june or july of ninety two right after they started dating when there's no cocaine this is a fake and specify threats of harm that will never fulfilled just like in arriaga very and shows these threats by themselves are not persecution either in isolation or in conjunction with the other minor incidents in this really want to be in america these people wanted to be in their own country and it was intolerable we don't know that your honor we don't know why they want to be in this country maybe it's because
verities investigation suggested that the government wanted to wrap this whole thing up and so he wanted to plead guilty to this second or i guess it would be a third matter the government was prepared to because the standard of review changes from abuse of discretion should good novo review and therefore we assume that the court of appeals may take some action that is harmful more no next post facto it's now you're mixing different provisions of different parts of the constitution let's stick with x v the fact i would suggest that under washington lindsay versus washington where you should restrict simply because the law the standard of review has changed even if the sentence in court was wrong and imposing only one month of additional incarceration he runs into the old standard i mean it's agreed the they didn't appeal on that point that this was the that the government never took the position that this was not a proper departure theory nor did they ever take the position that this was not a correct
the client hands that have it in a snowbank and we have him apparently claiming to know where it is in the snowbank and giving directions to persons that do not enable them to find it in the gunnison found  this case was that not that he denied possession of a firearm we all know that this different theories of possession and possession in this case was the before the jury actually been stipulated to other elements shall i by somewhat frantic text messages back and forth where they're desperately trying to get the gun back to return presumably in order to avoid getting in trouble with the rifle that suggests a gun during that time period