MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
unless the court has any specific concerns or questions about the credibility issue i like to begin focusing on the issue of persecution give half of the positive credit or you're not claiming that censorship is persecution right there are you know and i and i and it's not merely just about some first amendment does not but then afterwards he began to receive graft in connection to the play and this i recall the threats or if you put on the play will kill you and he didn't put on a play right now but but what happened afterwards is that then the whole thing  became very public and the subsequent correct had to do with that at the same time something not mentioned in the judge's decision is that before contrast not only missed that but he did also mention that there were people connected with this place and after he left the united states he heard arrested and harm and so i think that certainly you know police complaint filed by his wife made no mention of it mentioned in the salt but not at knifepoint and that's in the in the record three sixty seven and your nerves why since a group of thugs surrounded me a grand pas personally threatened by means of the of the assault and if you were to take the ninth out with the way that he the way that he told it was that you know he's basically shut down against the wall or something and with four people there discussion it's it's a combination of words and and insensitive testing and there are a threat if you come back here we're going to kill you as opposed to if you put on the play we're going to kill you   that's so that he has a well founded fear of being killed on account of his political opinion and it's believable very thin but he's got stuff like somebody calls and uses bad language to his wife you don't have a right to asylum unless everybody there says he's just wonderful i'm sorry he doesn't have a right to asylum just because people don't think he's wonderful and they disapprove of his views i've got to find a well founded fear of persecution the so what you're saying is if that time one the person says somebody made a threat to me and a time to he says somebody made a threat to me and put a knife in my throat there's no contradiction because saying thoughts that's in his police report are the addition of a connection with the government is that it for the first know he said well of course not then i'd know who they work and that's about as good as it gets on and i don't mean to demean what may have happened but the fact is that on this record still private individuals with suspicious motives and that's all that's about the best that we can say about  everything about his case with all due respect suggests that he's going to thing happened it was just months i won't get into the nature of this meeting that he was coming to the team but it i wish someone at the hearing had explored that so that i could talk about it but it doesn't sound frankly like got anything other than to come to the united states
so the dismissal based on a stage of limitations was affirmed in that case based on the change of location of the accident was in this case the plea of ahead an opportunity to introduce evidence in the circuit court that would provide proof that the defendant's head notice of the location of the accident under rule to fish six nineteen  positions of another medical malpractise case and and i quite frankly rumors i don't believe that medical malpractise cases have any application to a slip and fall cases should not be considered controlling because in denying the motion to reconsider under the abuse of discretion stated this standard i believe the case is pretty straightforward here and we would  obligation to prove the lack of prejudice and which they did not prove this case the room that the statute of limitations was smile weighted by changing the
far and that was based on inheritance and her half brothers being just satisfy the being left out of the will and really we didn't we're not breaking any of that part up to this we've we've we haven't brought that part in what we're concentrating now is simply the evidence in the record and  so what exactly he told the g a o or what the the agreement was between them well the da shouldn't shouldn't be required to to give everyone who comes to them automatic permanent resident status well that's we don't know what happened i suspect he said that's fine if you give us something that allows us to break up a portion of her tell the rest of what someone in jail do something of that sort we don't know if that's what happened we don't know if he actually brought i think that that government and the u s government and it's not just a question of a drug deal gone bad or the situation but you basically have him working for the u s government which in turn is cooperating with the colombian government to try to eradica doesn't that bring the government and the political imprimatur on to the table that the reason he didn't give any more information in the morning is because he didn't want her to fear for her life which is a little strange given that that's how she took the war but even so the warning itself doesn't establish that they have  crime there that they weren't paying their taxes something like that and this sport found in the persecution of people who worked for political figures and in this case it was politically charged to be on account of political opinion and to do political
on thank you and it requires that the actions be tony divorced from me detection investigation or accusation of evidence of violation of criminal statute which is of circumstance exception to the requirement in a non criminal context having a relaxed probable cause requirement i would suggest that in this case
very clash between the tackle and the morgan cases as two different approaches and that what we're dealing with here i'm not familiar with the findings in those cases  we have to rely upon that are you familiar with either of those concepts if not the cases i'm not familiar with the cases but your honor in this case the da need a decision based on the judge's finding which i thought was right there was a due process violation and that in any proceeding before the immigration judge that any time that the petitioner wants to admit a document that has to happen or the whole thing gets thrown out  he testifies as to different dates than are on the document then his lawyer and i gather you are now a different lawyer and his lawyer tries to put that document front of him so that he can read from it in russia trial judge has the idea it was in this case just an absence of that person's function to be able to exist observe the demeanor of the witness take into account any inconsistency and grok inclusions from that a i j was really clear that he thought that the time he and i'm quoting here jelly appeared confused as a witness unable to recall specific  alleged period and period of incarceration mistreatment that his testimony about the police was uncalled for vega lacking in detail now doesn't that go to the heart kind of case police well there's two different issues there understand how he's running into a burning building if he won't go to russia for them well he came here and he came to study reiki and then you want to be reunited with his family you want to be apart from his family and then he came back here his family what else where he didn't rejoin his family so you tell  decision in this case you have a great or the board clearly agreed with the immigration judge and adopted his reasons that while adding his own commentary and i believe just procreates of the courts to look to both decisions in order to find substantial evidence the grounds he agencies the evidence as well as whether it's fundamentally fair to admit that evidence as the court reviews the record i would point out the ministry of record pages one thirty four three one thirty sixty immigration judge extensive discussion with  clean the medical records are wrong and again he wasn't claiming there was an improper translation his testimony and his position before the word was that oh the hospital put the wrong case so he wants the court to believe that  petitioner and the immigration judge looked at all that and determined that you know my understanding is that the individual who the woman who finally receives them is there on the court that is correct and that is the same individual  don't believe so i believe that he did conduct enough of the net background inquiry to decide whether these documents were probative and fundamentally fair and given the testimony the immigration judge decided that
in this case is whether mr mendez was eligible for a two twelve c waiver at his hearing in january two thousand and three when at the time he pled guilty in  the in fact and the question is did he remain eligible for the waiver at his immigration hearing in january two thousand and three if the answer is no he was not eligible for the waiver then the board did not abused his discretion in denying the motion to reconsider and his removal order was lawfully executed if on the other hand he was eligible for the waiver and it mindor under waiters berg that the removal order was not lawfully executed because his due process rights would have been violated all at the hearing he was last year there was regulations published by the department in september two thousand and four that waived the time requirement for special motions to reopen for to twelve futility exception to this exhaustion requirement there was a regulation in place that were would have precluded the board from changing the result of the immigration judge so the regulations waiter so at the time he pled guilty he became in admissible and he and under our being inadmissible that he could never leave the united states if he left the united states when
ladies and just we're happy at this time to present a warner brothers o high i'm much obliged to you for bringing me here tonight i felt a little scared and blue when i first came here but i don't feel that way now because of everything but please don't ask me to sing again as furious she was when i stepped in tonight is brought up  sometimes it's enough to put me up in mines the days  speak for the others as for myself i'm a southerner by a
stopped from placing him in exclusion or like today would be called move for seedings based upon representation says he understood as to what his status would be in the united states now admittedly later when the plane still hasn't landed the perhaps against is done and maybe that's not right after all and they were now the government's position as well they should complain about that i don't think they were in a position to complain that they were here they were on that decision his relationship to president marcos was a very close relationship he isn't one of those who are somewhat remotely affiliated with the late president and we did ask the court i suggested before my wish to remain in the matter to the board for consideration of the current situation in the philippines that was opposed by the government on the grounds that it should first have been addressed in the straight of the through a has lied is where you want to assert there have been changed circumstances so that you now have a claim for asylum which you did not have and what we were trying to find out was not changed circumstances so it doesn't fall within the ambit that  the standard motion to reopen requires that it be done within ninety days or much more than ninety days past that the issue was that the conditions that it is named in the philippines today are just as dangerous for mr gandhi as they were
oh everything well we've got one th something like that so how valuable it's hard to humans put a value on a farm like this here but for somebody to have the forethought to preserve  people are here today since so many other people and that's what it takes is to get young people well i think more people should watch for this i know that they put on a t i think like twice in europe i'm right i think one of the rings and i can't
tremendous cases before the immigration judge the question of whether one's family qualified as a high mashable particular social group was not at issue only on appeal to the board apply the attorney general's decision a matter of value to find mr menaces particular social group of his family lacks sufficient evidence a social distinction however mr jimenez had no reason to approve of the element of socialist nation before the immigration judge because the issue of whether one's family qualifying had been settled law in a certain sense nine hundred and eighty six opinion the end of downloading this file was we're meant to protect the most vulnerable individuals not the most widely know and already noted as was some of the other as the previous case in with this case really what's at issue in this particular case is the issue of nexus which is a critical critical component of any claim profiling or withholding proffered particular social groups is erroneous or that any reasonable fact finder would be compelled to find anything the contrary that it is this case does not involve the meaning of the attorney general's decision in l a yeah it doesn't turn out it's not an issue whatsoever immigration judge below and as articulated in further down by the board as this court has already pointed out the decision as to his but claims for withholding of removal turn it the issue here isn't there is the lack of a nexus whatsoever you can do it the definition of his individual particular social group was really is really not an issue in this particular case it's contrary what this case was at the immigration does well into the board level really turned on the lack of a nexus there's no connection between the murders of his three cousins and twenty the threats that his mother and the rest of the family received from an intoxicated man in two thousand and thirteen on two times or any any of the existing property disputes that were reportedly ongoing in this particular well judge i think that taken as a whole when you look at the rest of it this is a this was an oral decision that was issued from from the bench from the immigration judge after reciting all of the the proper your honor and the attorney and the immigration judges finding the comment ability of the petitioners family through particular social room is ambiguous and if you were to read from the decision and there as judge pres there is no analysis as to whether his particular special graham about his family was kind i hope because at that time it was settled law and then a circuit that one family was a the family would not be a particular social group and the sentence that a particular social group fails never meant is using onto it actually just referring to the nexus ground  is a reasonable interpretation of the immigration judges decisions saying that the particular social group fails as in the claim regarding harmonic out of a particular social group not that one family is not a cognizable particular social group sensually the standard for social distinction with families and opposed to all particular social groups
as they put it earlier a catch twenty two so for the judge to in fact bolster his credibility finding by the absence of the very evidence that he's ruled out enforcing you know filing rules seems to
that there would have been more evidence of back inside of her purse and it was proper to search the person even if even though it was not exactly a traffic stop so th
father under the communist regime for ten years and then the consequences of the horror to the rest of the family members we also found that she had been entirely truthful and she was a credible witness in front of the immigration court the immigration intimidation and violence she has chosen the rule of law to to order to go through the courts to honor the decisions of judges to protect her interest in her home the opposition the individuals connected to the government their base the power here is corruption intimidation directs the violence in so ten years and how father was in jail for seventy five to eighty five based on some of the conditions that this family had to endure going my time here however after finding the past persecution the government first of all stayed on reports of significant changes and albania after the one nine hundred ninety you revolution let me interrupt you for just a moment to ask on a question of water which i frankly don't know the answer but i guess i'm about to try and figure this out  question has changed country conditions she has to we have to be convinced that the harm that she will suffer after the change is a harmonic count of one of the projects to pro your answer to the questions tha think been clearly laid out is this regulation with regards to these two alternatives methods of being granted a final aster you status  to that country capital k says the applicant has demonstrated compelling reasons for being on willing or unable to return to the country or rising out of the severity of the pa
evidence and then there's different reports about how that x ray or that m r i is affecting a person and so we were just talking a minute ago about what your own client said and about the lay testimony and you're wanting to color attention to the late witnesses statements about his sle
it was a most unusual day from the west a cold front riding in high on the jet stream from the gulf of mexico a low mass of moist warm unstable air heading northward and when they collided it became the day of the killer tornado from early morning the weather service warnings were from the gulf to the canadian border at the radio station just west of town announcer bill burton receives a telephone call telling us it's coming the only warning last second shot and in thirty seconds thirty one  quickly the emergency operating center is manned by civil defense and members of the hamilton county disaster coun are really a huge funnel rips across the ohio river passes just west of cincinnati roars on through hamilton developing off the bottom of that tornado that thunderstorm or rather the track apparently is taking it from northeastern warren county in the southeast in montgomery county and the central green county at miami valley disaster services in daegu the director dick burrows picks up the storm a severe massive storm track indicated by the hook in our radar screen is now moving into the city of xenia versions in the city of xenia and along a tract just south of the arrowhead xenia central state should take cover immediately cut through the harvest area searchers by three victims a mother and her two small children their bodies blown and tumbled a quarter mile to the muddy a grieving father still alive but with a broken back  it looked like this in the morning counted one hundred forty seven tornadoes and the damage is enormous all in all more than six hundred million dollars all businesses storms thousands of unsafe buildings to be searched shuttered marked off limits and disaster for the people who own them help will be needed the president's declared ten states to be major disaster areas eligible for federal assistance in all its many forms one stock disaster centers are set up to handle home farm and small business loans food stamps shelter trailers and other temporary housing and help is coming from every direction mcgraw's salvation army all the military services corps of engineers the national guard  eighty people feel so sorry for him april third one hundred seventy four the day of the killer tornadoes they killed three hundred and seven people in eleven states sirens no weather wire thirty one day in xenia thirty three in louisville cincinnati huntsville the story was different they had warning planning emergency
the next case is jordan vs new york city board of elections will hear st from mr jordan the docket sheet which shows where the order was was written whether or not he whether or not i or the plaintiff alleged specific facts demonstrat likelihood a success on the merits we believe that the plaintiff that this is the case about retaliation against a candidate by government at the time because the deadline hadn't been changed until after you came and spoke to the staff your honor on the th of march i went to manhattan branch of the board of elections and inquired about what would be the correct the people at the front desk went in the back and tried to find out exactly what information it should give me and they said they didn't know this time i was concerned to know the exact times i went to the book and branch and again what they did which was normal when they went to make sure that what ever information they were provided was accurate so i knew that the last that would be the seventy along with another employee and they could have gone in the back to find out if it was critical to definitely look i'm telling you that we will not be needed clear we will not be accepted additions on till the end of the month which  do stack to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits in particular to answer your honor's question the information if any was provided during the business day on the th was correct the record contains the calendar of both the original calendar which translated the date change in the filing date was not and acted until after the business day on the th and therefore any information stating the original filing date which would be calculated misrepresentation and no grounds to allege a misrepresentation in retaliation for a prior lawsuit this accord had many other question
explain how this injury affects you as an individual uniquely as opposed to other people in new york and around the country causing these on identified voters in the state to cast the deciding vote basically president trump because the swing state you know went into the republican electoral vote column defendant thereby diluted the potential for the swing state to go democratic and that in the sixteen election and that somehow impacted the value to address trying to distinguish david from the case at hand he says that the language of bass clef zation and in davis at least as i understand his argument as to do with circumstances that are beyond the campaign's control for example an f b i raid on city offices during a matters reelection campaign and here are the actions alleged to have swung the election ban that were within the campaign's control so the argument is how do you respond states which he did not even reside relied on misinformation that the spending reportedly directed towards them and that it was the victim permission that caused these individuals to vote for president trump as opposed to and i believe the david will reserve decision