[00:00:01] Speaker 01:
Good morning, and welcome to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

[00:00:03] Speaker 01:
It'll be just one minute.

[00:00:05] Speaker 01:
My name is Morgan Christen.

[00:00:06] Speaker 01:
I'm one of the judges on the circuit court.

[00:00:08] Speaker 01:
I'm delighted to be sitting in Portland this week with my colleague from Pasadena, Judge Wynn, on my right, your left, I suppose, and my colleague from Phoenix, Judge Hurwitz.

[00:00:19] Speaker 01:
I have to do a little bit of housekeeping to just make note on the record of cases that will not be heard in oral argument today.

[00:00:28] Speaker 01:
One moment, this is the wrong list.

[00:00:34] Speaker 01:
No, I'll get it.

[00:00:35] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:00:42] Speaker 01:
The first is case number 23-35536.

[00:00:50] Speaker 01:
Miljevich.

[00:00:55] Speaker 01:
I think it's Miljevich.

[00:00:59] Speaker 01:
Millevich?

[00:01:01] Speaker 01:
We tried this several ways in chambers.

[00:01:03] Speaker 01:
I think it's Millevich versus O'Malley.

[00:01:06] Speaker 01:
The second is 23-706, United States of America versus Grone.

[00:01:11] Speaker 01:
And that takes us to the first case on the oral argument calendar, which is 23-1021.

[00:01:18] Speaker 01:
That's who both of you are, I hope?

[00:01:23] Speaker 01:
Yes?

[00:01:24] Speaker 01:
OK.

[00:01:26] Speaker 01:
Pascacio Sanchez versus Garland.

[00:01:29] Speaker 01:
Can you tell me when you come to the podium how to correctly pronounce your client's name?

[00:01:33] Speaker 01:
Come on up.

[00:01:34] Speaker 01:
We're ready to hear your argument.

[00:01:41] Speaker 04:
Our client's name is Pascacio Sanchez.

[00:01:43] Speaker 04:
Pascacio Sanchez.

[00:01:45] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:01:52] Speaker 04:
Go right ahead.

[00:01:54] Speaker 04:
Good morning.

[00:01:54] Speaker 04:
May it please the court.

[00:01:55] Speaker 04:
My name is Destiny Soto, and I represent the petitioners, Ms.

[00:01:58] Speaker 04:
Pascasio-Sanchez and her three children.

[00:02:01] Speaker 04:
I would like to reserve two minutes for rebuttal.

[00:02:04] Speaker 01:
Sure.

[00:02:04] Speaker 01:
Just keep an eye on the clock.

[00:02:06] Speaker 04:
We are requesting a remand of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, which upheld the immigration judge's decision to deny the petitioner's claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under cap.

[00:02:19] Speaker 04:
We make this request for two reasons, two main reasons.

[00:02:22] Speaker 04:
First, the immigration judge failed to correctly identify the petitioner's claim particular social groups, and also failed to determine whether or not such groups were cognizable for purposes of asylum and withholding of removal.

[00:02:39] Speaker 04:
Second, the BIA committed a procedural error by dismissing the petitioner's appeal based on an incorrect notion that the PSG's presented were new claims.

[00:02:49] Speaker 00:
There were some new claims.

[00:02:52] Speaker 04:
I do not believe that there was, which I can get into right now if you want to, Your Honor.

[00:02:57] Speaker 01:
I think the salient point is wasn't there a claim before the IJ that was also submitted to the BIA?

[00:03:03] Speaker 01:
That's what you need, at least one that was submitted to the IJ and also submitted to the BIA.

[00:03:07] Speaker 04:
Yeah, there well on its face there were three that were submitted to the I I mean Sorry for submitted to the IJ that matched for submitted to the BIA But the BIA is saying that there are three additional ones that were not submit that were not submitted to the immigration judge And we believe that they were so I want to ask you I think what the government is arguing that they can tell tell me when they get up is that

[00:03:34] Speaker 02:
Even if the BIA mistakenly thought you hadn't preserved the argument about the original PSGs, the IJ was quite correct in turning down your application based on the original PSGs.

[00:03:50] Speaker 02:
Assume that's right.

[00:03:51] Speaker 02:
Assume for a moment that the IJ made no error.

[00:03:54] Speaker 02:
Does that make a difference to us?

[00:03:57] Speaker 04:
Yeah, well, I'm sorry.

[00:04:01] Speaker 02:
Can you repeat?

[00:04:02] Speaker 02:
Sure.

[00:04:03] Speaker 02:
You argue two things.

[00:04:04] Speaker 02:
One, you say the IJ made an error in addressing the PSGs that you presented to the IJ.

[00:04:10] Speaker 02:
I must say I have a harder time with that argument than your argument that the BIA didn't pay any attention to your original PSGs.

[00:04:19] Speaker 02:
So my question is, let's assume the IJ was right.

[00:04:22] Speaker 02:
If this had been preserved correctly all the way through, we would say the IJ didn't abuse its discretion.

[00:04:31] Speaker 02:
Does it matter, or are you entitled to have this remanded simply because the BIA never addressed those groups?

[00:04:40] Speaker 04:
No, we wouldn't have it entitled to be remanded.

[00:04:42] Speaker 02:
You would not?

[00:04:43] Speaker 04:
Would not.

[00:04:44] Speaker 00:
Well, you would if the BIA failed to address the PSGs submitted.

[00:04:49] Speaker 00:
But, sorry.

[00:04:52] Speaker 02:
The BIA, you say, and I tend to, for purposes of this question, let me just tell you, I agree with you for purposes of this question.

[00:04:59] Speaker 02:
never addressed your three original PSGs.

[00:05:03] Speaker 02:
Let's assume they made a mistake in not addressing those three original PSGs.

[00:05:08] Speaker 02:
But then on the merits, if we were to look back at the IJ's decision, we would say the IJ correctly rejected the application.

[00:05:17] Speaker 02:
Can we do that, or do we have to send it back to the BIA to do that?

[00:05:23] Speaker 04:
We would say that you have to send it back to the BIA to re-review.

[00:05:27] Speaker 02:
And that's because why?

[00:05:29] Speaker 02:
Is it because we can't affirm the BIA on a ground that they didn't rely on?

[00:05:38] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:05:39] Speaker 02:
OK.

[00:05:39] Speaker 01:
It wasn't a trick question.

[00:05:41] Speaker 01:
I'm sorry.

[00:05:42] Speaker 01:
I made it that way.

[00:05:42] Speaker 01:
We're just trying to make sure that we understand your position.

[00:05:44] Speaker 01:
Yeah.

[00:05:44] Speaker 01:
And I think your position is that you had a PSG before the IJ that the IJ ruled on that the BIA didn't rule on.

[00:05:53] Speaker 01:
Is that correct?

[00:05:55] Speaker 04:
Yes, on its face.

[00:05:58] Speaker 04:
But there's more that I wanted to explain to you.

[00:06:00] Speaker 04:
So I'm sorry for making it confusing.

[00:06:02] Speaker 01:
That's all right.

[00:06:03] Speaker 01:
Go right ahead.

[00:06:04] Speaker 04:
OK.

[00:06:06] Speaker 04:
So going into my second argument, which is that the BIA committed a procedural error in mistakenly believing that there were new PSGs.

[00:06:15] Speaker 02:
But isn't that your only argument?

[00:06:18] Speaker 02:
See, that's why I'm asking the question.

[00:06:21] Speaker 02:
The BIA did not affirm the IJ on the grounds that the IJ specified, which is that he didn't think you'd establish the requisite fear of future persecution or a nexus to the PSG.

[00:06:35] Speaker 02:
So the issue of whether the IJ erred in doing that is not in front of us.

[00:06:42] Speaker 02:
The only issue in front of us is whether the BIA aired and not addressing those three groups.

[00:06:48] Speaker 04:
Yes.

[00:06:48] Speaker 02:
OK.

[00:06:49] Speaker 02:
And as to that issue, tell me why your appellate brief to the BIA preserved that issue for BIA review.

[00:06:58] Speaker 04:
Will do.

[00:06:59] Speaker 04:
So I want to say.

[00:07:02] Speaker 04:
The PSGs, so there's three PSGs that the BIA said were new.

[00:07:08] Speaker 04:
I would like to start with the third PSG that they're addressing, which I believe mirrors the third PSG that was actually submitted to the immigration judge.

[00:07:16] Speaker 02:
Let me ask my question more specifically.

[00:07:18] Speaker 02:
Let's assume that you didn't raise those three new PSGs before the IJ.

[00:07:25] Speaker 02:
Did your appellate brief to the BIA

[00:07:29] Speaker 02:
argue that the original PSGs that you had raised to the IJ were incorrectly turned down by the IJ?

[00:07:41] Speaker 02:
Yes, but the reason why I'm telling you yes is because I believe that the new- And I'm asking you to put aside whether the new ones are sufficiently similar to the old ones.

[00:07:53] Speaker 02:
I thought I read your brief as saying,

[00:07:56] Speaker 02:
He made a mistake by not granting the original three PSGs.

[00:08:00] Speaker 02:
And then it raised a bunch of new ones, which may or may not be appropriate.

[00:08:05] Speaker 02:
They never addressed the original ones.

[00:08:07] Speaker 02:
So I'm trying to figure out whether you agree with my premise in my question that your appellate brief to the PAA really did reassert the original PSGs in their original form, not in a transmogrified form, but in their original form.

[00:08:26] Speaker 04:
Yes.

[00:08:27] Speaker 02:
And where in your brief does it do that?

[00:08:29] Speaker 04:
Where in the brief do we address the

[00:08:35] Speaker 04:
Sorry, where in the brief do we address the new forms?

[00:08:38] Speaker 02:
No, not the new ones, the old ones.

[00:08:40] Speaker 04:
The old ones?

[00:08:40] Speaker 02:
In your brief to the BIA, I think it says, the IJ made a mistake by not granting us relief based on the original three PSGs.

[00:08:50] Speaker 02:
And if it did say that, then it seems to me the BIA made a mistake by not addressing them.

[00:08:55] Speaker 02:
So I just want to make sure that my reading of your brief is correct.

[00:08:58] Speaker 04:
Yes, and in the brief it talks about, and when it's talking about those mistakes that the IG made, it cites to Z of E Holder, matter of EAG and matter of SEASEG, which were the arguments that the immigration judge used to dismiss the PSGs, the original PSGs.

[00:09:19] Speaker 04:
And that's where we bring that up.

[00:09:21] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:09:23] Speaker 00:
Before you run completely out of time, I just want to raise an issue for you to think about.

[00:09:28] Speaker 00:
You may already know the circuit has a robust mediation program.

[00:09:33] Speaker 00:
I don't know if you've reached out to talk to government counsel about that, but it may be worth exploring.

[00:09:39] Speaker 00:
the parties can confer and let us know if you're interested in putting this case in the mediation program.

[00:09:44] Speaker 01:
That's not a question for you to answer right now.

[00:09:46] Speaker 01:
I'm going to let you reserve the remainder of your time.

[00:09:49] Speaker 01:
We're just giving you an opportunity to think about that, and when you come back, you'll have the remaining time.

[00:09:53] Speaker 01:
Okay?

[00:09:54] Speaker 01:
Okay, thank you.

[00:09:54] Speaker 01:
You bet.

[00:09:55] Speaker 01:
We'll hear from government counsel, please.

[00:10:03] Speaker 03:
Good morning.

[00:10:04] Speaker 03:
May it please the court, Paul Fiorino for the Attorney General.

[00:10:08] Speaker 03:
To get to Judge Hurwitz's question, in the petitioner's brief to the board, the board held that they made a passing reference to the first three PSGs that they raised before the IJ but didn't defend them, and instead raised

[00:10:26] Speaker 03:
articulated three more, or I don't know if it was three or four.

[00:10:30] Speaker 02:
And that's what I'm having trouble with with the BIA decision.

[00:10:33] Speaker 02:
I'm looking at, I was asking your friend to identify it, but I've got page 18 of ER 18, I think it is.

[00:10:41] Speaker 02:
It's page 12 of their brief to the BIA.

[00:10:44] Speaker 02:
It seems to identify the groups and then make an argument right after it about why the IJ erred in not

[00:10:55] Speaker 02:
in not granting relief.

[00:11:01] Speaker 02:
He may not have aired, but that's not in front of us.

[00:11:03] Speaker 02:
And then it's not until the next page that these three new groups appear.

[00:11:09] Speaker 02:
Now, whether or not they're just meant to support the notion that the original three ones existed or not, I don't know.

[00:11:15] Speaker 02:
But I'm assuming the BIA is correct in not addressing the new three.

[00:11:19] Speaker 02:
But why doesn't page 12 of their brief sufficiently preserve the issue?

[00:11:25] Speaker 03:
Well, they just mentioned them.

[00:11:27] Speaker 03:
They said the PSGs include immediate family members of police officers.

[00:11:31] Speaker 02:
Well, but then they go on to cite case law describing why this is a PSG.

[00:11:37] Speaker 03:
Well, the case law that they cite is more or less just a general discussion.

[00:11:41] Speaker 02:
It may be a terrible brief.

[00:11:42] Speaker 02:
That's a separate issue.

[00:11:43] Speaker 02:
But it does argue that these three PSGs should have given rise to relief.

[00:11:54] Speaker 02:
It's not forfeited just because the lawyer doesn't make the argument in elegant terms, is it?

[00:11:59] Speaker 03:
Well, the real question is we're looking at what the board decided, right?

[00:12:02] Speaker 03:
Because we're looking at the board's decision.

[00:12:05] Speaker 01:
That's the scope of the court's review.

[00:12:06] Speaker 01:
We're looking at whether the board had an opportunity.

[00:12:08] Speaker 01:
Was it fairly teed up?

[00:12:10] Speaker 01:
Was it fairly teed up?

[00:12:13] Speaker 03:
I don't think it was.

[00:12:14] Speaker 01:
Why not?

[00:12:15] Speaker 03:
Because as I was explaining to Judge Hurwitz, they mentioned the groups.

[00:12:22] Speaker 03:
Then they talk about the law.

[00:12:24] Speaker 02:
They talk about the principles that would apply to determine whether it is a group.

[00:12:28] Speaker 03:
Well, they don't refer to the groups themselves.

[00:12:31] Speaker 03:
They don't say why those groups are

[00:12:35] Speaker 03:
Valid and remember what the IJ said the IJ said didn't make any ruling on the Cognizability of those groups the IJ simply said it was It was essentially a nexus funding.

[00:12:48] Speaker 03:
You're right your honor.

[00:12:48] Speaker 01:
Yeah, I didn't say anything about nexus didn't need to so well, but Council if you could I think my point is we can't rely on that and you're not asking us to rely on nexus.

[00:12:59] Speaker 01:
Are you?

[00:13:00] Speaker 01:
No, okay Okay, go ahead

[00:13:03] Speaker 00:
but that that that the idea is that there's no sorry judge let me act at that point because i i see this

[00:13:11] Speaker 00:
Whether it's a great brief or not is another matter.

[00:13:14] Speaker 00:
But I see this brief as going beyond just merely mentioning the groups that were raised before the IJ.

[00:13:22] Speaker 00:
So that's on page 18.

[00:13:23] Speaker 00:
And so your argument is there was just a passing reference to the group.

[00:13:28] Speaker 00:
The problem is that these groups, as well as the new groups raised, are very interrelated.

[00:13:33] Speaker 00:
And I don't see anything about the arguments that would preclude that analysis being applied

[00:13:39] Speaker 00:
to the groups raised before the IJ as well.

[00:13:42] Speaker 03:
Well, I think that the different groups are very different.

[00:13:46] Speaker 03:
And as we point out on page 15 of our brief, the usage of different words is not to be ignored.

[00:13:55] Speaker 03:
When you choose different words

[00:13:57] Speaker 03:
to describe something, you know, it's a canon of construction.

[00:14:00] Speaker 03:
When you use different words, it's presumed to mean something differently.

[00:14:03] Speaker 01:
We don't analyze this as we do a statute counsel.

[00:14:06] Speaker 01:
So can you tell us how are these meaningfully different?

[00:14:09] Speaker 01:
If you could circle back to Judge Wynn's question.

[00:14:10] Speaker 01:
Can I have the same question?

[00:14:11] Speaker 01:
How are they meaningfully different?

[00:14:13] Speaker 03:
Well, we explain it in page 15 of our brief.

[00:14:17] Speaker 03:
On the one hand, you have individuals.

[00:14:20] Speaker 03:
On the other hand, you have police officers.

[00:14:22] Speaker 03:
They're very different in scope.

[00:14:24] Speaker 03:
They have one reference is to family members, one reference is to immediate family members.

[00:14:29] Speaker 00:
My question is slightly different, because on page 19 of the brief before the BIA, after the listing of all of the groups, I'm looking at paragraph 2, it says, there's no doubt that respondents belong to the PSGs noted above.

[00:14:44] Speaker 00:
So that to me suggests that all of the arguments that follow apply to all the groups raised, including the groups mentioned on page 18, which were raised before the IJ.

[00:14:55] Speaker 00:
So I think, why isn't that sufficient to let the BIA know that all of these groups are issue and that you have to specifically discuss them?

[00:15:03] Speaker 00:
And if you don't, then we remand for a do-over.

[00:15:06] Speaker 03:
Well, if the court finds that this issue is sufficiently preserved, that the first three PSGs were sufficiently preserved in this brief, which I agree is not a very good brief, then you would have to remand, OK?

[00:15:22] Speaker 03:
But our position is, and we're defending what the board decided, that it appeared to the board that they abandoned their first three PSGs.

[00:15:33] Speaker 03:
And you may take a different view.

[00:15:35] Speaker 03:
that they abandoned their first three PSGs, reformulated some new ones, and when the board was correct in declining to consider those.

[00:15:48] Speaker 03:
So our position is that the board did not legally err when it interpreted the petitioners

[00:15:58] Speaker 03:
board brief to abandon those first three and advance the three new ones.

[00:16:03] Speaker 02:
I'm sorry.

[00:16:03] Speaker 02:
I didn't mean to interrupt you.

[00:16:05] Speaker 02:
If this one paragraph at the top of what's ER 19 consistent with it, then it raises the new groups.

[00:16:17] Speaker 02:
If that were gone, all the arguments that follow apply to the original groups, don't they?

[00:16:23] Speaker 02:
Because they deal with why being a member of a family and suffering persecution at the hands of a gang would qualify for your PSG.

[00:16:33] Speaker 02:
But it seems to me that the only, the discord here comes from that one paragraph that seems to reformulate the groups.

[00:16:42] Speaker 02:
But all the arguments that they raised would apply to the original groups if they posed, wouldn't they?

[00:16:48] Speaker 03:
Yeah, you see, it's not clear.

[00:16:52] Speaker 02:
We all agree that it's not clear.

[00:16:54] Speaker 03:
Well, that's important, though, because if it's not clear to us, it wasn't clear to the board.

[00:16:58] Speaker 02:
Well, but the board found that they abandoned the groups.

[00:17:01] Speaker 02:
It didn't say it's not clear.

[00:17:03] Speaker 02:
It said you abandoned them.

[00:17:05] Speaker 02:
And that's my difficulty with your position, is I'm having trouble finding in this brief an abandonment as opposed to a confusion.

[00:17:15] Speaker 03:
Well, put your stuff in the board's position.

[00:17:18] Speaker 03:
It's unclear what they're arguing, which groups they're advancing.

[00:17:23] Speaker 03:
And it has to come down on one side or the other.

[00:17:26] Speaker 02:
No, it doesn't have to.

[00:17:26] Speaker 02:
It doesn't.

[00:17:27] Speaker 02:
It can just say, so we'll assume you're raising the original groups, and we'll address the IJ's decision.

[00:17:34] Speaker 02:
And my guess is, based on this record, more likely than not, saying there was substantial evidence to support the IJ's decision.

[00:17:42] Speaker 02:
It's the board's absence of addressing the IJ's decision in the alternative that causes the problem for us, I think.

[00:17:49] Speaker 03:
I can see that, and I don't disagree that the board could have been clearer in doing that.

[00:17:55] Speaker 03:
But at this juncture, our position is that the board did not make a legal error when it was confronted with this arguably ambiguous, shifting, and evanescent

[00:18:10] Speaker 03:
social group structure to decide, looks at it, can't make heads or tails of it, and said, we don't know what they're advancing here.

[00:18:19] Speaker 03:
It looks like they've abandoned them.

[00:18:22] Speaker 02:
Yeah, I read the briefing and read the government's briefing before the BIA.

[00:18:26] Speaker 02:
And as I recall, the government didn't argue that the groups were abandoned, did it?

[00:18:30] Speaker 03:
No.

[00:18:30] Speaker 02:
To the BIA arrived at this conclusion, it wasn't, so in order to say that you're not at fault, you didn't lead the BIA into error here.

[00:18:40] Speaker 02:
Apparently, if they got to error, they did it all on their own.

[00:18:43] Speaker 03:
No, and you're right.

[00:18:44] Speaker 03:
I mean, the government briefs before the board usually are

[00:18:49] Speaker 03:
boilerplate.

[00:18:51] Speaker 03:
They really don't say much.

[00:18:53] Speaker 02:
They said you should uphold the IJ's decision because it was based on substantial evidence.

[00:18:59] Speaker 02:
That's what they argued.

[00:19:00] Speaker 02:
Had the BIA simply done that, we wouldn't be confronting this issue.

[00:19:04] Speaker 03:
Well, the BIA would have had to

[00:19:07] Speaker 03:
I think that's right.

[00:19:07] Speaker 03:
I mean, if you… So, the… Counsel, we're kind of taking you over the very same ground.

[00:19:13] Speaker 01:
Let me ask you, since you just have one minute left, is there anything else you'd like to raise?

[00:19:16] Speaker 03:
No, I think we've covered the issues and… There's one.

[00:19:22] Speaker 01:
There's one.

[00:19:22] Speaker 01:
And we've covered it.

[00:19:23] Speaker 01:
Is there anything else you'd like to raise?

[00:19:26] Speaker 03:
Well, with respect to Kat, we would just argue that there's no compelling evidence of future torture, and there's been no interest in the family since then.

[00:19:36] Speaker 03:
So other than that, unless the court has any further questions, I think I've covered my ground.

[00:19:40] Speaker 01:
I wanted to make sure you had an opportunity to have some time left for that.

[00:19:43] Speaker 01:
Justin, do you have other questions?

[00:19:45] Speaker 03:
Oh, can I just talk about the mediation?

[00:19:48] Speaker 01:
Sure.

[00:19:49] Speaker 03:
Yeah, counsel sent me an email on Monday asking about mediation, and I haven't

[00:19:54] Speaker 03:
had any time to confer.

[00:19:55] Speaker 03:
I mean, if after the argument, if they want to submit a request for closure or something, I would be happy to entertain that.

[00:20:05] Speaker 03:
But at this stage of the game, it's, you know.

[00:20:08] Speaker 01:
We'll let you work that out between the two of you.

[00:20:10] Speaker 01:
Not a problem.

[00:20:10] Speaker 01:
We've been busy this week, too.

[00:20:12] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:20:13] Speaker 01:
Thank you for your argument.

[00:20:14] Speaker 01:
You have a little bit of time left.

[00:20:21] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:20:22] Speaker 04:
Your Honor, what you asked is if the opportunity was fairly teed up, and we argue that it was.

[00:20:30] Speaker 04:
We've said multiple times back and forth, it seems that the brief that was submitted might have been an artful, but at its core, was the BIA aware of what was going on and what was appealed?

[00:20:42] Speaker 04:
Or, I'm sorry, was the immigration judge aware of what was going on and what was going to be appealed?

[00:20:46] Speaker 04:
This court has held in S. Young v. Holder that although drafting might be imprecise, the challenges to the immigration judge were sufficiently raised.

[00:20:58] Speaker 04:
Using that same reasoning, we believe that the challenges were sufficiently raised.

[00:21:03] Speaker 04:
Your Honor, you talked about how that you actually think those new questions may have been a little bit of maybe re-emphasis of the PSGs that were already submitted.

[00:21:15] Speaker 04:
And we believe that's correct.

[00:21:19] Speaker 04:
Throughout testimony and declarations, the petitioners made clear that they had witnessed Mr. Morales-Hamayas kidnapping and immediately reported it to the police, indicating that how they aided was through reporting and being a witness.

[00:21:35] Speaker 04:
The petitioners also made clear that they fear harm from the cartel because Mr. Morales-Hamayas was a police officer and that they had reported the kidnapping to authorities.

[00:21:45] Speaker 04:
Again, saying what it was that they were scared of.

[00:21:56] Speaker 04:
given all of that has been argued, and the questions that I have attempted to answer for you guys today, we respectfully argue that the evidence does show that this was fairly teed up.

[00:22:06] Speaker 04:
The immigration judge knew, had a full record of everything that was being challenged, I mean, everything that was being argued, and it was properly challenged before the BIA.

[00:22:15] Speaker 04:
And with that, we rest.

[00:22:16] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:22:17] Speaker 01:
Just one minute.

[00:22:18] Speaker 01:
More questions?

[00:22:19] Speaker 01:
No more questions.

[00:22:19] Speaker 01:
Thank you both for your advocacy.

[00:22:21] Speaker 01:
We appreciate it very much.

[00:22:22] Speaker 01:
We'll take that matter under advisement.

[00:22:24] Speaker 01:
Milgevich has been submitted, Groen has submitted, so we'll go on to the next case on the