relief that were but that were denied and i'll treat each application as the supreme court decision and holder of the martinez two thousand and twelve states many provisions of immigration law advance the goals of promoting family unity and providing relie aliens with strong ties to this country cancellation of removal for certain non permanent residence under twelve twenty nine b if such provision the relief provides an opportunity for just one of status in cases where among other criteria there is a finding  atrocious sexual physical and emotional abuse by her father and by her mother she came to united states she raised two u s citizen children a daughter named daisy and a son named jonathan partly as a single mother in two thousand and ten she briefly left the united states to visit her father who was dying and within a week of her return to mexico her father died she then returned to the united states fearful of remaining in mexico and was followed her relief applications the dr record was supplemented biometrics were processed fingerprints were taken and the government follows opposition to the applications for relief in april two thousand and twelve just two months before her eldest child daisy's twenty first birthday she filed a motion to advance the hearing with a concern that she would become imminently ineligible for relief because her child would be turning twenty one considering that's a commute cumulative analysis of hardship she wanted to have the hardship considered for both her son and her daughter her daughter was then living with her was a new mother herself had a history of mental ill mental illness and was fully reliant on her mother she was so mr garcia wanted to have dot consideration analyzed by the court the judge took approximately one month to deny the motion to advance and held a hearing approximately eight days after these twenty first birthday but the hearing could have been before the hearing but the council preferred the hearing right to the court provided two dates june seventh and when there was a professional conflict on that date because of two other court hearings at this on the same date she requested another date which was june twentieth once once it was determined that there was a concern there was a concern that daisy would age out for purposes of analyzing her hardship we merely filed a motion to advance we found out a motion to advance just two weeks after we received dep tell us why she should have humanitarian issue on in this case she was found credible with respect to the abuse that she suffered in the board of immigration appeals  assumed in its decision that she suffered persecution and that it was on a protected ground the board of immigration appeals fail to consider whether or not failed to consider whether or not she was old people for humanitarian asylum in its decision it testified it noted just very simply that she testified she was abused by her father it didn't go into the fact that the abuse started from the age that she could remember how to think which was later clarified as at age six or seven she can she began to suffer this atrocious harm and she suffered this atrocious harm all the way until she was fourteen when she tried to escape or for her father and when she tried to escape he brought her back pulling her hair back to the house then she was there again and then by the time she turned eighteen she fled to the united states and she remained here up until she was on the press he went she went back one time after coming and i look at her father's now family's been targeted right it's it's because there's a reasonable possibility that she may suffer other serious harm and the other serious harm in this case was that her family was targeted and in two thousand and fourteen matter published by the board of the new gratian appeals with respect to how the family should be analyzed in these family and his family social group issues so we believe we would submit to the court that she severed atrocious harm and therefore qualifies for humanitarian asylum and reasonable fear of the future are there were several arguments made us to her the the future harm consideration but none of those were considered by the board and none of those were considered  substantially considered by the board or by the immigration judge we would submit to the court to remand the case for further fact finding good morning greg pennington on behalf of the attorney general the court seems most concerned with the humanitarian silence all jump right in there as the board decided they assumed past persecution which is a prerequisite to even consideration of humanitarian asylum they assumed all that so then the next step would be for her to show either the unable or unwilling this to return arising out of the severity of the pledge i think judge gilman pointed out the father is already dead so her unwilling or  able to return based on the severity of the past harm isn't really a factor in this case also because she returned on her own volition and sent her own daughter to visit her father who abused her so i don't think this relationships are very complicated i can't say i don't think you can say just because she went to visit her father before he died that she was an abuser that diminishes the severity of her abuse and your brother was dying bit the question i have is did were you in discussions to exercise prosecutorial discretion in this case there were several requests made during the immigration proceeding that are in the record where her counsel submitted prosecutorial discretion request to the trial attorney below and then the case was also in mediation here in i think that was exhausted trying to determine whether the h s would join in a motion to reopen for consideration of application for adjustment status because as it stands now she has a final order of removal so she would have to have her proceeding reopened to night i think one because there was no application attached to the motion to reopen as required by regulations and also because she didn't show prima facia eligibility and i touched those board decisions with the the letter brief i believe or what the opposition to her motion to supplement the record so she's already tried to move the board to reopen the proceeding based on that piece of petition i don't know if she's approached d h s s but to join in a motion to reopen but i think that's what the mediation efforts were for that was exhausted and i don't know what her eligibility for is i think there was discussion in the record because when she came back from visiting her father she presented a couple fraudulent documents to try to reenter the united states so d h has charged her with misrepresentation to enter and that is it's its own problem because then she would require a waiver and during the proceedings she wasn't eligible for the waiver because you can only seek the waiver by showing hardship to a spouse or parent and she didn't have a spouse or parent who is a united states citizen or lawful permanent resident at that time she didn't have it so now she's married has this new visa petition it's possible now that he can seek that waiver but i don't know if she didn't submit enough evidence to the board that they didn't want to reopen it at that point but that's just kind of where the case is now as far as as  family the evidence in the record about the family or the board didn't think that and the court is reviewing that for an abuse of discretion it seems pretty difficult to say this is not a ten percent chance that she would suffer serious harm given the record of the harm to her correct judge right hard but the harm to her family happened in the state of mexico which is in far south mexico and she testified that she would go and live in tijuana most likely have a serious illness and can't get medical care so there's decisions wide ranging for the other serious harm but she does have to sell some reasonable possibility of other serious harm and again  but i think there was testimony that she never applied for asylum or anything like that if that factors into it at all her mother's house was ransacked at one point was not yes he did testify that her mother's house with ransacked  and that her brother was shot at in his taxi but again as you pointed out she's not going to go drive a taxi and the only indication the record is that she's going to go and i know judge right here you don't agree because the porton consider this but the court reviewing for an abuse of discretion to find that this decision is not arbitrary capricious or contrary to law and then if you like for just a minute i can talk about the cancellation of removal i think the court's decision and mendez garcia you know what i some possibility of i would seriously i would consider you know participating in mediation if the court wants to steer it that way again i would just note that it went through mediation in two thousand and twelve but before she had approved that is to my knowledge i believe there was no approve use of petition back then so again now she has this piece of petition there's still a couple of obstacles for an outright application for she would need waivers for the misrepresentation and also for the previous unlawful presence in this representation was what using her sister's driver's license thing she tried to use two different cards i think she got stopped using her sister's driver's license and they let her withdraw her application for admission and she went back and bought a fake i d in tijuana and then try to get and in that time they said no we're at we're going to go ahead and detain you and and america you know if you did know back to me would you be the one that just in conclusion i want to revert back to the board of immigration appeals decision where it where it stated the harm of the respondent suffered growing up she was not present evidence demonstrating severe atrocious persecution such that a grant of humanitarian  and i would submit to the court of sexual abuse of a six year old is not atrocious i don't know what would be so i believe that to him i believe that the proceeds harm has been suffered in this case and this court should remain the case for consideration of the other harm that she may suffer and her family owns an apartment complex there on a couple of houses her mother didn't drive a taxi when her house was ransacked either but this these groups believe that similar facts apply here i'd also submit to the court that the judge that the board of immigration appeals appeals failed to consider hernandez ortiz begins all as the ninth circuit's two thousand and seven case holding that the agency must look at the event from the child's perspective and measure the degree of injury by impact on children of that age and then lastly i would i would request i would submit to the court that this case be remanded for the consideration of the matter of l e a and also a matter of a r c g both cases that i think are important on these issues and if you have any questions i'd be happy to try to respond to them i think you think