good morning christopher stander for the petitioner i would like to reserve two minutes of my time for rebuttal at the end it's our position that the withdrawal of the petitioners asylum application was not considered and intelligence the fifth amendment guarantee to a full and fair hearing including the right to present evidence and inspect and rebut government evidence applies to immigration proceedings where the proceedings were so fundamentally unfair that the alien was presented and prevented from reasonably presenting his case the court can find if you process violation was the due process claim raised in the for the b i a yes i believe it was it was raised you're saying it was raised before the b i no dispute about that i would actually have to re review it but i would point out that at the immigration judge level the consul was quite clear in arguing that she was prevented from being fully prepared in the presentation of the asylum application because the immigration office or the asylum officers notes were not given to right or you would agree that if it was not briefed to the b i then  think it was great i believe we're going to standing is that the brief to the b i hey actually indicates that it was a voluntary strategic voluntary decision to part i have two minutes left at the end for that i'll take another look at that issue thank you nonetheless the due process claim that in order to set forth the due process plan the petitioner must show prejudice to demonstrate prejudice the petitioner must demonstrate only that the immigration judges conduct potentially affected the outcome of the proceedings the petitioner would point out that the immigration judge clearly pressured the petition to withdraw their silent application i've already stated counsel at the immigration hearing was not permitted to inspect the asylum officers notes prior to her decision which was under pressure were directed to withdraw the asylum application the immigration order of the application the form i five eighty nine is three applications in one it's asylum it's withholding and it's convention against torture relief you can get convention against torture relief is completely independent from the silence of the withholding and in and as a sort of a general understanding in terms of how the claim is made well certainly the legal standard differs and i'll get into that in my argument however when the facts are presented to the immigration court immigration judge has the duty to conduct an analysis under the relevant case law of this case convention against torture to analyze whether the facts presented to the court would make a claim under the convention against torture immigration immigration judge in her own handwriting is under other and it's written purportedly by the immigration judge stockton no other relief available ok so here's my question was the cat playing withdrawn at the and was it not withdrawn which what is your position on that well i suppose there's two ways we can look at it that the bottom line is it was never mentioned by the immigration judge it's not mentioned by petitioners counsel at the hearing or by the government there was silence to it silence is not a sufficient withdrawal of the claim and in fact more than that the immigration judge has an affirmative duty to consider all forms of relief by failing to mention it even if the titi counsel at that point respond as consul didn't mention it the immigration judge still is under that affirmative duty which is regulatory to consider all forms of relief the application was followed submitted to the court withdraw all of a sudden withholding has nothing to do with the withdrawal of the cat claims completely well except the only problem i have with that is that apparently according to the b i a there was a they were in removal proceedings for two months after they purportedly withdrew their asylum applications and never indicated called the individual or regular hearing the application for asylum and withholding was withdrawn at the initial hearing nonetheless it still had to be considered by the immigration court whether or not it was mentioned by  petitioners counsel and in fact the raising of the issue in the motion to reconsider certainly put to be on notice that this claim was not considered by the immigration court and therefore as requested the case should have been remanded for the immigration judges without offering any evidence right it should have been that also ties into our original argument that the withdrawal was under duress it was not considered an intelligent it's it does that goes to all claims but as to this thing as to this one first of all with respect to their due process claim they did not raise that before the board so therefore it has not been exhausted and this court does not have jurisdiction to consider it their due process claim covers their claim that the immigration judge pressured them to withdraw their asylum application as well as the fact that they were not given the opportunity to examine the notes before they withdrew their asylum application if we are to assume that this court  even in that context the petitioners have not set forth a meritorious due process claim first of all the petitioners were not entitled to discover the asylum officers interview notes in preparation of his asylum claim and they had a fair chance to review them in the context of the fraud claim with respect to be asylum claim federal rules of civil procedure don't apply in removal proceedings second with respect to the asylum claim the plaintiff have the burden of proof therefore the asylum officers notes would only have been offered as rebuttal evidence if the petitioner had gotten up and had testified with respect to the contents of his asylum application only then would break to review the notes and to prepare her cross examination before she cross examined the asylum officer and then on top of that stating who is the male petitioner didn't testify for until two months after those notes were submitted into evidence so he certainly had plenty of time to review those to refresh the recollection and to rebut what was what was in the notes moving on to the claim that the immigration judge insisted that the plaint one of those pages petitioners counsel indicates that she had always intended to withdraw the asylum applications moving beyond that even if that weren't the case the immigration judge recently reasonably determined that the ninety four and ninety five asylum applications finally with respect to petitioners argument that the immigration judge somehow pressured them by by saying that that a frivolous filing warning was going to be given if they proceeded with their silent applications the project nature of the asylum applications that simply following the regulations finally turning to the board's denial of the motion to reconsider they are again the petitioner did not indicate to the immigration judge at the time that they withdrew the asylum application or in the two months afterwards that the removal proceedings continued at no point did they indicate that they were still going to pursue their cat claim they didn't present any evidence when they appealed to the board they other than a factual recitation i don't see that