morning morning may it please the court jenny marra what's appointed to represent the petitioner juan at the media and i'd like to reserve one minute for a puddle and i'll watch the clock ok thank you procedural due process required that the immigration judge give s give me  more than thirty four days to gather evidence of his thirty four years worth of ties to the united states had asked me have been given more time to gather evidence in support of his application for cancellation of removal he would have been able to present letters and testimony from family members former employers and other individuals but because he could not connect with his family from detention in that short window of time as to me i had to proceed with no evidence to support his testimony at the conclusion of the hearing the immigration judge relied on the lack of supporting evidence the evidence as to me i did not have a sufficient opportunity to obtain to deny asking me is up like a sion in doing so the immigration judge violated us  music right to a full and fair hearing by affording us committed just over one month to gather evidence the immigration judge prevented us command from reasonably presenting his case increase rendon view holder this court found a petitioner was prevented from reasonably presenting her case when she was not given sufficient time to guess mia to gather evidence in support of her application for cancellation of removal the court described the thirty one day and twenty nine day continuances in that case as exceedingly short and found it unsurprising that the petitioner was unable to marshal significant evidence as to me i had even less time than the petitioner and christer in down and unlike  representing himself from detention location which was submitted on march nineteenth contained a request for time to gather evidence at the april eleventh hearing he made clear that there was evidence that would support his application but that he with english has no way of contact i mean did he have a cell phone did he have the numbers and seem like the family was separate and he was looking for work know as commute testified that he did not have a cell phone while in detention and did not in the age of technology have his family members phone numbers or addresses committed to memory that he had lost before i'd left behind left it is his prior address right was what he testified this so how how was he supposed to contact his of his fellow detainees to look up his family members phone numbers on for one one presumably he could have you know attempts to have ted you know write letters to you know the addresses as best he could recollect he also testified that he didn't believe his family would be looking for him because he they thought he was in the process of relocating to las vegas and he'd only been in detention so what sort of what to what should the i j a have done here if you want time time but i don't know if it's going to be any good said mr escott mia let's do it right now judge well if you want time i'll give you time the thing is if you want the time i'll give you know the opportunity says it again says nice of that three shows that he was confused about the proceeding he thought he could appeal he was feeling helpless he couldn't figure out how to contact his family he was worried that his family might not be looking for him he was concerned about imposing on his family because they  twenty nine day or thirty one day continuance both of those were exceedingly short and in that case the petitioner was represented by counsel in this case the petitioner was in detention and did not have the benefit of legal counsel to get help gathering supporting evidence know initially briefed the case per se and after having been in detention for a year and a half asked this court to lift the stay of removal because he didn't want to be in detention anymore and thought being in mexico would be better prejudice is he's alleging he was write letters that he had done good work you know family members other families with whom he had lived could submit letters or testimony and he had spent specify these people at the time it was to be adjourned we had yes at the april eleventh hearing at area eighty two and eighty three he told the immigration judge that he believed that there were individuals who would submit letters and testimony on his behalf he didn't say who they were though no but he i don't believe he was required to i mean he did testify at that hearing you know that he had two brothers who were lawful permanent residents his mom had lawful permanent resident status his sister was a u s citizen and if you know he could get in touch with his mom that she could you know assist with gathering evidence from these individuals or former employers but what do we make of the fact that he apparently had indicated he had no criminal history but in fact he does have a criminal history and there's some credibility issues here that they were waiting in the immigration judge found he was credible and we this court except the immigration judges credibility determination even though he definitely made  and saying i have no convictions i mean he eventually testified he admitted that he had been convicted of the possession offenses and there was it seemed like some confusion to prevail on his due process claim we have to show that he had a due process right that that right was violated and that prejudice resulted to him from that violation so he's relying on his right to have a fundamentally fair hearing but we don't think he can show a violation when he's in detention what  kind of access to see half of you has asked a limited access to a phone does he have access to a computer he does have i don't know about unlimited your honor he does have access to a phone he does have access to a computer he did write his appeal to the board on the computer fallacy in this case is he didn't know his family's address but if you look at page one seventy six the record in this cancellation of removal application he put his family's address there so he could have written a letter to his family at any point and i think the flavor you get when you read the transcript has a similar flavor to what you look at the criminal docket look at the criminal docket we just have a failure to appear after failure to appear he has to go back to jail after a violation of probation but he won't provide documentation of a drug program he was supposed to attend and we have a similar thing here he just was sitting on his rights not writing these letters and not getting the aid he needed i think that the judge the immigration judge was actually being quite conscientiousness the development of the record on pages eighty three thirty seven of the record petitioner on four different occasions said that he didn't want or expressed the inclination to go forward with the hearings to indicate he didn't want to continuance but the immigration judge would not be dissuaded to continue to press him until he finally accepted a continuance now granted i can feel it was only eleven days but in that final hearing petitioner never asked for another continuance it indicated in his testimony that he thought he was not going to look at the documentation and i think what's also if you look i'm in his testimony to the immigration does he talks about how he doesn't think it's family can help him or will help him based on the low that they have a financial load and that they have their own lives and then they're not going to come help them so if you're in the immigration judges position and trying to act reasonable in trying to develop this record i think the immigration judge was listening to what petition was saying he still gave a continuance even though petitioner indicated and want period here from when he was told to gather evidence to when the final hearing occurred and i do agree that like i said it is we do have a short period of time but i don't think it was an orderly sort to get a letter back  to the to the board in and i guess that the letter he got he could have provided to the board on an initial appeal and i'm uncertain as to why he didn't do that how that how with the board look at that evidence would they say it was available know and it's and i think it's a troubling case because the you know they the lack of hope and ability to reach anyone is traveling you know you're going to i mean i don't know if you've been detention center i haven't so i can't speak to it i'm punching this one soon but i mean as i understand it they're overcrowded there's no nothing provided they don't have lawyers and i have resources in it and you came straight from jail himself on the on the interpretation issue of or spanish versus english he did say english was his best language to communicate in we do have a short time period here but again looking looking at what he told the immigration judge i just don't know that we can get to due process violation here i think we might have a different case if he was told that certainly if you're standing ovation judge here any more time any more time or any more time it was the nine if you look at cruiser and down in cruiser and down there was a continuous denial so there was a request and there was also trying to get information from mexico which would take more time and get information say from instate and so and then i just want to talk about the outside the record is available to the board which is actually quite a different situation than what's available to the court so the board is if the board is presented with actual record evidence then they can have the ability to remain on the case of it's still open for those who sponsor a power to reopen want us to look at it so we just don't think that there is a due process violation here and because there is not either the case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or should be denied if the constitutional claim is colorable the more i'd like to address three points that were raised the first opposing counsel suggested that as to me and knew his family members addresses all along he did list an address i believe for his sister on his application for cancellation of removal i think you listed eighty two is the street number and then during the removal proceedings that are ninety nine he testified that he thought it was eight o two but he wasn't sewer and that ultimately it did turn out to be on the letter that was attached to his per se opening brief to be eighty two so it seems that he was simply having some trouble figuring out exactly what the street number was i'm he did as opposing counsel noted eventually get a letter  from his sister and was able to get in touch with his family the record is not clear when exactly he obtained that letter when exactly he connected with his family but a motion to reopen a is typically a vehicle for it's a purely fact based motion for presenting new facts that are discovered since the hearing and as good media was not as something to present new facts he was attempting to support a legal argument reopen and two if i had additional time now that i got in touch with my sister i got access to a lot of other people as well and i couldn't do that and i would like to reopen but that seems like those are arguments that are well placed to the board are pretty tough when you just come straight here right i mean it again the record is unclear as to the timeline we just we don't know but i think you know he was saying i need more time to you know to get everything together and a single eleven day continuance for a pro se sister for a pro se applicant who is in detention and you know struggling with the limitations of detention was exceedingly short so consistent with his duty to ensure the record was fully time but if he had said at any time in there i've sent letters off or i've made phone calls i'm waiting to hear back on those things is there any evidence that he told the i j a what his what his efforts were that he was hoping would bear fruit he did at the everloving hearing say that he had enlisted the help of his fellow of other companies other people who didn't know his family that right but to you know make phone calls on for one one right  and i believe that's the only but i know it no evidence that he had sent letters off or that he had so even even as to the address that he had he didn't appear to send a letter i think i don't think we can say one way or the other from the record no no evidence that he