please the court and alert for the petitioner gregorio cruz ramos yours were here today on a case that was once before the court previously it was remanded to the board of immigration appeals where they issued a new decision again giving little reasoning to the petitioner as to why his affidavit requesting a hearing was insufficient before the immigration judge the respondents case primarily involves a vehicle stop by a marked border patrol vehicle with no local law enforcement no traffic to kids no criminal charges no allegations of any wrongdoing beyond his well being the border i'm just not sure that the government might be  i think that that statement alone in and of itself might not be enough but with the with all of the circumstances considered in the affidavit together it is so what has your honor he also indicated that he had  not dissipate any any traffic laws believed he didn't disobey any traffic laws was simply driving and was pulled over by a marked border patrol vehicle felt he had no ability to leave that he was definitely not free at that point when his car was stopped so your honor i guess my position is that the the before the officer talks to the individual in the vehicle when they make that decision to stop it  person in mr cruz ramos position doesn't know what's in the mind of the border patrol officer doesn't know if the border patrol officer has some other independent information  has no real way even through discovery to find that out unlike a criminal trial and the only thing he can do is put before an immigration judge what he knows it was that it was more that he kind of affirmed in this case that it's not affidavit i mean he had access to the form two thirteen which says that there was a march for border patrol unit and that he attempted to evade it and yet there's no allegation in the affidavit that i didn't attempt i didn't see any says he doesn't believe he committed i mean maybe i'm misremembering so help me if i'm misremembering record but he says he doesn't believe that he committed any traffic violations but it doesn't say i did not attempt or patrol or your honor i don't think there's any allegation that there was an intent to evade even the the first time the matter was before the court we all myself the government judge were all relying on me to thirteen in that faction the two thirteen i don't think there's an attempt to evade in those facts they border patrol officer followed him for close to two hours waited while you had lunch where he followed him for two hours waited while i had lunch taken is true support a finding that it was stopped because it was the fact that his name was jim humanness and that the vehicle much registered in his name has at least some circumstantial evidence that he was stopped on that basis because it's perhaps reasonable to suppose that the border patrol ran the plate or maybe they didn't maybe if there's a hearing we find out they didn't run the plate what about that you're right i would argue that they were the respondents name in addition to his appearance but again isn't an indication that he is illegally information concerning my status that was acquired when when i was stopped because i don't think i did anything wrong and i am all of us i'm of this ethnicity or that race or you are that's basically that's basically all there is and if that is so why why isn't there hearing in every case while you're on i think that there's a first of all this is in particular a vehicle stop not a consensual street encounter or a house or a place of employment or anything else as an individual driving a vehicle and under the constitution that make it you could say i was walking down the street minding my own business and i am of this race or where that ethnicity whatever it is and i don't know why i was stopped and i therefore believe it's it is based on and race or ethnicity and then you get a hearing you're i think in the context of an immigration proceeding that you're the the constitution protects you from an illegal seizure if you're the person being seized you should be entitled to under you but that you not tell the suppression in an immigration case except under egregious circumstances which are which on which are held to be egregious and rare is the fact that he's hispanic and not somebody who's ethnicity is scots irish relevant for this purpose your honor i would argue that it's relevant because if going back in the border patrol's history before before the supreme court case that first talked about a vehicle stop border patrol thought they could stop people without regard that they could stop them based on issues like as mr do they actually argued in that case that it was a proper basis and the court said no it doesn't matter that you're an immigration officer you can't stop someone just because of  their ethnicity the question is how much do you have to allege to trigger hearing on this issue here your client alleges i was driving at the speed limit did not believe that i had violated a traffic law doesn't allegedly thing and maybe say doesn't have to there are specific allegations in the i two thirteen that he might have taken issue with for instance says the driver of the vehicle was observed watching the marked border patrol unit in his rear view mirror intently enough that he nearly wrecked into another vehicle stopped at the red light he could have specifically denied that he was doing that we were under he did specifically deny that he specifically said he was driving in a normal manner and driving in a normal matter this is very specific to me it doesn't say normal manner says i did not feel as though i could drive away while i was driving within the speed limit and did not believe that i violated any traffic laws i suppose you could have nearly re somebody without violating a traffic law your honor i guess might i don't know how we get to the faction the eye to thirteen or how my client makes a statement like  he doesn't it's not even a point of reference for him he doesn't know he's been followed he doesn't think there is anything unusual about his private understand the proceeding it may but he does have access to the allegations and the eye to thirteen says yes i c about that so he said he could have checked you could have taken issue with anything that was in there more specifically than his done in the affidavit potentially or although i limited to what what within my client's personal knowledge i mean obviously if he doesn't have any memory of he's trying to suppress the evidence of his of his ethnicity or his is his status in this country sailing and judges based his unit which is based upon this document and this document says why he's ledges where the border patrol stopped you sure are except that in the first time this matter was before the court we there was rather extensive underlying argument to remember ever guards to this if you will both in regards to the i two thirteen which then there was a determination that we should rely on that so we went to what was strictly within my client's affidavit but my client's affidavit has to be based on his personal knowledge if he didn't feel there was almost an accident i don't know how how he says much more than what he said in his affidavit that i was driving i was a bang the traffic law as i was accepting that as as so then you would have to concede that you don't really need to say very much at all in order to make out a promise as you carry sufficient to get a hearing correct your honor i was walking down the street minding my own business and i was stopped by the border patrol and i am of this ethnicity or of that race and i found i think that's why i was stopped is according to you that would be enough or i would argue that there there there there is more to it he said there  nothing and that he was driving was within the law that there was nothing unusual about his driving minding my own business and i didn't cross against the light but let me come back to the question i asked you before if i may  i wonder whether there isn't a case for the proposition given the history of animists against illegal immigrants from hispanic countries which has been on full view and last year in a variety of ways but long and to dates and and against possibly one or two other groups that we could mention is there a case for the proposition that people from those extractions are maybe in a somewhat different position about what a sufficient affidavit looks like and then people of white anglo saxon northern vehicle because nothing else in the in the stop of the vehicle or the i two thirteen if you look at it in its completeness indicates why they were stopped if you wait for a person to have lunch they don't think there's an issue about evasion if we're going to go to the to what's in the eye to thirteen if you follow a person around and you're desperately waiting for something to happen so hopefully you can pull over their car so you know what you've been doing this for a while oh gee finally they make that turn was a little quick i think i'm going to pull over i think that somewhere a person has to have an ability to get into a court and find out why to go forward with minimal delay and as my colleague says in any case in which a car is stopped and help me understand why this the scope of the rule that you're hedging in any case in which a car is stopped then it seems to me if the allegation is made that i believe i was stopped on the basis of my race and i don't remember violating any traffic laws you'd have to have a hearing in that case well your honor the government would have to allow the responded to testify well you could then be cross examined and ask questions more truth than in this case there's more to it because you've got the border patrol following this guy for knew that there are probably millions but in any case lots of illegal persons that is to say no undocumented aliens who are hispanic in origin and there's more to that case then i see this guy walking down the street i think i'll pull him over i would agree i think there's a lot of a lot more than simply a vehicle driving issue i would also argue in regards to the lo decision that first of all i have no longer exists it's now the department of homeland security we remove or deport from the united states and between the  between president bush and president obama i think close to four million people in the hundred years or or more before that i don't even think we remotely approach that i think that the are a really different and the immigration court process is really different but i mean if we're going to get into one i remit gratian policy ought to be and we were going to be not asking for you to be below or paygrade whether cruz ramos's affidavit and his affidavit alone could support a basis for suppression and thus requiring a further hearing the board issued a decision saying that the affidavit was not sufficient to warrant a further hearing that decision is fully consistent with the case law of this court what's the analysis what was good enough the board analyze the statements in the affidavit and determine that it was too it was merely allegations there and asked for stop them and asked for identification and so in that case i made a allege that he was stopped solely because of his race here we don't even have the allegation that the border  saw anyone in the car to know what their ethnicity was didn't they see that they were looking out the window and were looking backward i mean if you see people looking back i guess you'd see what they look like we're looking at at this very threshold stage is his affidavit i'm talking about that is what you want to look at the eye to thirteen i mean i'm just being a what's a reasonable process let's say i think to thirteen not for the truth of what is in there but what should be in his in a in a petitioner is an affidavit in order to get a hearing and he needs to take issue with what the government's presentation is in order to know so the immigration  the immigration judge record know what happened and remember sirius is that's why you need to hear well but this court has specifically laid out a process along with the board that the case even if the hearing is is expeditious it can result in a year or two of delay assuming the b s a becomes more efficient than it is correct it could take some time but and that's why this court set up the process of requiring an affidavit first to meet a minimum threshold and then if that threshold has been met a full hearing at which point the i j a tremens whether a prime official case been met at which point then the government can put on its evidence to justify the manner in which the stop occurred and isn't there enough here when he says i didn't i don't believe i violated any traffic i was just driving and i was stopped and i believe it was because of my race when else had what else is he in a position to put into an affidavit but he for one i mean he could indicate that  officers were aware of his ethnicity that's not in here and again i would point to are made aware i mean if he had seen the car before it pulled over because in his affidavit great and well and that is the issue because he has to allege that the or he has to demonstrate some evidence that the stop was based on an impermissible characteristic in this case is race to be based on things that were said by the be some factual basis beyond just the intuition that race played a part and if there are no further questions we ask that this court uphold the decision of the board and deny the petition for review i think you stop and i think that the petitioner's affidavit in this case is sufficient he does indicate he's hispanic he indicates he doesn't believe that he believes the border patrol pulled them over for that reason he doesn't specifically say of the middle of lake ontario but hundred miles from the middle of lake ontario would be on the shore of lake ontario the though the border the border the closest border point for where he was stopped i as border crossing is but then to canada you're on or not nowhere near into the southern border you're i would i would like to argue some of the other the the factual issues in regards to what else might it's not clear to me that he could have put a lot more into his affidavit but i think that it's really important that individuals like this petitioner have an it isn't in mind or has no direct knowledge yes but that would say that you have a hearing in every case which may not be even better idea it's just not that something law your honor i think that the respondent assertion individual in this kind of situation has a three hour block of time for their individual hearing potentially for this individual who is asking for voluntary departure something that can be done in about half an hour sometimes in ten minutes there is plenty of time at that individual hearing to have an officer testified they arrange testimony by tell a video they do it any number of other ways that you have a right that you did petitioner could then go to the take appeal from that outcome of that hearing was a burst certainly in the senate and what do you think of delay would be and that from that part of the process we don't see that's the point your honor i don't think in this case there would be anything different except maybe me would have had facts and maybe i wouldn't actually be here a second time because we would have had a factual hearing in the court could look at was there some other reason that no one knows about because the government has chosen never to offer any facts as to why they thought the respondent so not having the you're right i think it's enough in this case because there's no indication of any other reason there's no there's no allegation a precisely the point really is i mean i guess your honor my point is that an individual should have an opportunity to develop a record whether through a hearing or the government actually making a factual response in their motion papers doesn't seem to be in the absence of it in the absence of an eye to thirteen or the hearing or anything else he has no way to assert what's within the officer or give there's no discovery in immigration court proceedings  i would argue that it that it's that it's not every case that there are actually very few cases were a border patrol officer pulls an alien and over in the absence of any other factors that there's no local law enforcement already pulling the gentleman over because of a speeding ticket or some traffic infraction that the that the border patrol officers stopping a vehicle isn't that frequent that the the court should should give an individual an opportunity to have a hearing in that kind of case because otherwise the border patrol is free to pull someone over without ever fear of even an in even having to come in and say to a court why they did it they then get the benefit of what the supreme court told them and love them and doesn't that they can't do you know obviously ok we don't have that state we were you in spanish at the windows maybe it's not we were flying a mexican flag from the radio antenna right there are a million would say that my client is a person that is entitled to a fundamentally fair removal process that he's entitled to the protections of the constitution that includes the protection for from having his vehicle stopped for for no reason and that if you can never get to a hearing because there's no way for him personally from his own personal knowledge to say why an officer stopped him he's got to have a vehicle to to get into that courtroom if i was he knows what he's not the least part of the reason he stopped him because he thought he was a reasonable chance there were one or more on documented aliens in the vehicle i mean he wasn't stopping him because he thought they were fishing without a license he was doing his job now ok but that doesn't get your guy hearing unless we change the law and it's not up to us to change that particular law so unless you  something that makes it plausible that it was racist in a city some prohibited factor i don't know how you divide this case have if you present that affidavit and you make a crime official claim at the very least the airline should have an opportunity to testify the if the l n testifies and meets i don't know what else my office like my client could have put in an affidavit be beyond what he did to to raise the issue i don't know what else is within his direct knowledge and i think that the law should be should be clear so an individual