[00:00:00] Speaker 03:
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is now in session.

[00:00:04] Speaker 03:
Please be seated.

[00:00:08] Speaker 03:
Good morning and welcome to the Council.

[00:00:09] Speaker 03:
It's going to just be a minute, okay?

[00:00:11] Speaker 03:
You're fine.

[00:00:13] Speaker 03:
It's fine.

[00:00:13] Speaker 03:
Good morning and welcome to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

[00:00:16] Speaker 03:
My name is Morgan Christen.

[00:00:17] Speaker 03:
I'm one of the judges on the circuit court.

[00:00:19] Speaker 03:
My chambers are in Anchorage, Alaska.

[00:00:21] Speaker 03:
I'm delighted to be sitting here in Portland today.

[00:00:24] Speaker 03:
A lot less snow on the ground here than there is at home this week.

[00:00:28] Speaker 03:
I'm sitting with two colleagues from Phoenix this week.

[00:00:30] Speaker 03:
Judge Hurwitz is joining us on video, and Judge Desai is here in the courtroom with me.

[00:00:36] Speaker 03:
We have six cases on the calendar, and I just need to do a little housekeeping to clarify for the record that three of them are going to be submitted without argument.

[00:00:45] Speaker 03:
They are case number 24-4577 Rodriguez Rios versus Bondi, 25-1103 United States of America versus Little Dog, and

[00:00:57] Speaker 03:
24-5011 Horton vs. Director Office of Workers Compensation Programs.

[00:01:04] Speaker 03:
The first case on the oral argument calendar is the one you were trying to get at and you're welcome to come to the podium now.

[00:01:10] Speaker 03:
It's Cassius Hiracha vs. Bondi 14-73993.

[00:01:16] Speaker 03:
Good morning.

[00:01:17] Speaker 00:
Good morning, and may it please the court.

[00:01:20] Speaker 00:
My name is Nellie Christensen, and I represent Ms.

[00:01:22] Speaker 00:
Casillas-Huaracha under the supervision of Jeff Heeran at the University of Idaho College of Law.

[00:01:27] Speaker 03:
Can I ask you to stop, because I'm remiss.

[00:01:29] Speaker 03:
I made a mistake.

[00:01:30] Speaker 03:
I need to make sure that counsel can hear us OK.

[00:01:34] Speaker 03:
Just a sound check.

[00:01:37] Speaker 03:
Remote counsel, can you hear us OK?

[00:01:40] Speaker 01:
I can hear you fine.

[00:01:40] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:01:41] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:01:42] Speaker 03:
Judge Hurwitz, we spoke earlier.

[00:01:44] Speaker 03:
You can hear us and see us OK, right?

[00:01:46] Speaker 03:
My mistake, I'm sorry, go right ahead.

[00:01:49] Speaker 00:
Great, thank you.

[00:01:49] Speaker 00:
I'd like to reserve three minutes for rebuttal, and I'll watch my time.

[00:01:53] Speaker 00:
Okay.

[00:01:54] Speaker 00:
Your honors, the issue in this case is that the immigration judge did not follow the correct procedure, resulting in prejudice to Ms.

[00:02:00] Speaker 00:
Casillas-Huaracha, a resident of this country for nearly 40 years.

[00:02:04] Speaker 00:
The immigration judge did not follow the correct procedure because first, the criminal dispositions that are at issue in this case are not in the record.

[00:02:13] Speaker 00:
And second, Ms.

[00:02:14] Speaker 00:
Casillas-Wadacha was precluded from presenting evidence to establish her eligibility for relief.

[00:02:20] Speaker 00:
So first, the criminal dispositions that are at issue in this case are not in the administrative record.

[00:02:26] Speaker 00:
And because the details matter here, I'd like to go to the administrative record, page 49, where the immigration judge asks the DHS attorney if there are any criminal convictions.

[00:02:36] Speaker 00:
The DHS attorney states that there are, in fact, three criminal convictions, and the DHS attorney reads one of those convictions, and then the immigration judge states the remaining two.

[00:02:46] Speaker 00:
Now, the immigration judge does later question Ms.

[00:02:49] Speaker 00:
Casillas-Huadacha about those criminal convictions, and Ms.

[00:02:52] Speaker 00:
Casillas-Huadacha does testify to these convictions.

[00:02:55] Speaker 00:
However, this court has already held into Cotley v. Ashcroft that an oral admission is not sufficient when applying the categorical approach.

[00:03:05] Speaker 05:
Have we really held that?

[00:03:06] Speaker 05:
I thought what we said was that the oral admission doesn't establish the underlying facts of the offense.

[00:03:14] Speaker 05:
But we've said many times that an admission by a petitioner can establish the fact of the conviction.

[00:03:24] Speaker 05:
Am I wrong in that?

[00:03:26] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, when applying the categorical approach, it is true.

[00:03:29] Speaker 05:
No, I'm asking a very specific question.

[00:03:32] Speaker 05:
I'm asking, haven't we held that the admission of a conviction

[00:03:36] Speaker 05:
by a petitioner is sufficient to establish the existence of the conviction.

[00:03:43] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, I'm not sure that that's what Tkotli holds.

[00:03:47] Speaker 00:
I'm not asking what that case holds.

[00:03:49] Speaker 05:
I'm asking you whether we haven't held precisely that admission of a conviction by a petitioner is sufficient to establish the existence of the conviction.

[00:04:00] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, from my research, no.

[00:04:03] Speaker 00:
That is not what this court has held in the past.

[00:04:06] Speaker 00:
The INA does state what is required for proof of conviction.

[00:04:10] Speaker 00:
And those are all documents under the INA.

[00:04:13] Speaker 03:
So could I stop you there?

[00:04:14] Speaker 03:
Because I think we might be missing each other.

[00:04:17] Speaker 03:
So I think you're going to tell us what has to happen when we apply the categorical approach.

[00:04:23] Speaker 03:
And Judge Hurwitz's question really goes to, don't we have case law, particularly, or T's decision that says,

[00:04:30] Speaker 03:
we can rely upon a statement, an admission, without even doing the categorical approach.

[00:04:38] Speaker 03:
Did you understand him to be asking that question?

[00:04:41] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, I'm not sure if I understand exactly.

[00:04:44] Speaker 00:
I do know that before we can even apply the categorical approach, it's an issue of if she has admitted to that conviction.

[00:04:53] Speaker 03:
You keep saying before.

[00:04:55] Speaker 03:
What I'm suggesting is I think we have case law that says we don't even have to go to the categorical approach.

[00:05:00] Speaker 03:
if she's admitted.

[00:05:01] Speaker 03:
That's the Ortiz case by my read.

[00:05:04] Speaker 03:
And I think that's why I said, I think what you're going to do, and what I understand from your briefing and your answer to Judge Hurwitz's questions, is talk about how we apply the categorical approach when we apply it.

[00:05:16] Speaker 03:
What I'm suggesting is, I'm not so sure we apply it here.

[00:05:19] Speaker 03:
What's your best authority for the notion that we apply it?

[00:05:22] Speaker 05:
Let me just make this clear so that you can answer both of us at the same time.

[00:05:25] Speaker 05:
Ortiz says a conviction may be established by the testimony

[00:05:30] Speaker 05:
of a petitioner.

[00:05:33] Speaker 05:
I take it what you're arguing is that even if she was convicted of methamphetamine, that doesn't establish that there's a categorical match.

[00:05:40] Speaker 05:
That's a separate argument.

[00:05:41] Speaker 05:
I'd like to hear that one.

[00:05:42] Speaker 05:
But on the first one, I think her testimony establishes the methamphetamine conviction.

[00:05:48] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, it is our position that her testimony is not sufficient to establish that possession of methamphetamine.

[00:05:54] Speaker 00:
And that's because the statute requires proof of conviction documents

[00:05:59] Speaker 05:
No, there's no statute requiring that.

[00:06:01] Speaker 05:
There are regs that say they may prove it, but it doesn't require it.

[00:06:08] Speaker 05:
So what I'd like you to do, if you can, because both Judge Christen and I would like you to get to this, I think, from her question, is address why, if she was convicted of methamphetamine possession in California, that was not enough to make her ineligible for cancellation of removal.

[00:06:29] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:06:31] Speaker 00:
It was not sufficient to make her ineligible for cancellation of removal.

[00:06:34] Speaker 00:
And it's just because the criminal dispositions that are an issue that the judge relied on in determining whether she is eligible for cancellation of removal, those dispositions aren't in the record.

[00:06:45] Speaker 00:
And the BIA held in matter of SMJ that any evidence the immigration judge uses to make a substantive ruling needs to be included in the record.

[00:06:54] Speaker 00:
And that's not what happened in this case.

[00:06:55] Speaker 03:
So if I disagree with you on this point, because I think there's an admission from her in the record

[00:07:00] Speaker 03:
that establishes the conviction.

[00:07:01] Speaker 03:
Let's just pretend for a minute for a hypothetical that I disagree with you on that point.

[00:07:06] Speaker 03:
Then could you take us through your analysis on the categorical approach?

[00:07:11] Speaker 00:
Yes, our analysis is simply that we don't even need to get into the weeds of exactly what categorical approach applies in this case because we need to have the document first.

[00:07:22] Speaker 00:
Under both types of categorical approaches, the actual document is what matters.

[00:07:27] Speaker 03:
Okay, so my hypothetical is I disagree with you, okay?

[00:07:30] Speaker 03:
So now my hypothetical world is I'm establishing there's a conviction and I'm looking to see if it's a match, right?

[00:07:37] Speaker 03:
A categorical match.

[00:07:38] Speaker 03:
How does that analysis go?

[00:07:39] Speaker 03:
Why shouldn't I decide that the California statute is facially broader?

[00:07:44] Speaker 00:
Well, Your Honor, I don't really have an argument for why that is the case, because I have Conrado versus Holder, which states that it is, in fact, a match for possession of methamphetamine is a categorical match.

[00:07:57] Speaker 00:
But our issue is that here we don't have the documents to establish that she was, in fact, convicted of methamphetamine.

[00:08:06] Speaker 00:
All right.

[00:08:06] Speaker 03:
Are there other questions or do you want to reserve, before we reserve time?

[00:08:12] Speaker 03:
No.

[00:08:12] Speaker 03:
No.

[00:08:13] Speaker 03:
Are they splitting time?

[00:08:14] Speaker 03:
Are you splitting this time or are you splitting your, how are you doing it?

[00:08:17] Speaker 00:
Yes, my co-counsel has three minutes now and I've used my seven.

[00:08:21] Speaker 00:
Okay, better hurry.

[00:08:22] Speaker 00:
No, no, no, that's it, that's it.

[00:08:23] Speaker 00:
Okay.

[00:08:23] Speaker 00:
That's all I have.

[00:08:24] Speaker 00:
Great, thank you.

[00:08:31] Speaker 04:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:08:32] Speaker 04:
May it please the court?

[00:08:33] Speaker 04:
My name is Julia Tyler, and I represent the Attorney General in this immigration case.

[00:08:38] Speaker 04:
If I may, I'd just like to take a moment to thank the Legal Aid Clinic representing Ms.

[00:08:44] Speaker 04:
Huaracha this morning, and especially Jeff Hirin, with whom I have been working on this case for several years now.

[00:08:51] Speaker 04:
I truly appreciate their time and their dedicated advocacy.

[00:08:55] Speaker 04:
Your Honors, there are none of petitioners' claims in this case were exhausted before the Board.

[00:09:02] Speaker 04:
But I am, and we know this Court has been very clear, that in order to exhaust a claim, the noncitizen must be put, who has put the Board on notice of the specific issues, such that the Board has an opportunity to pass on that issue.

[00:09:16] Speaker 04:
And procedural errors such as the one that petitioner is raising now for the first time that are correctable by the tribunal must be exhausted.

[00:09:26] Speaker 04:
So since you brought it up, I'm going to turn immediately to the alleged insufficiency of the record.

[00:09:36] Speaker 04:
There was nothing in petitioner's notice of appeal to the board or her brief to the board that said anything about that the judge testified herself about the criminal convictions or didn't admit certified copies or relying on Huarache's own concessions during the hearing as proof of the conviction of an issue.

[00:09:59] Speaker 04:
None of these issues were exhausted below.

[00:10:02] Speaker 04:
And I just want to address one thing.

[00:10:05] Speaker 05:
Can you stop for a second?

[00:10:06] Speaker 05:
Of course.

[00:10:07] Speaker 05:
She did argue below that the judge, I think, somehow erred in the categorical analysis.

[00:10:14] Speaker 05:
There's at least some discussion in front of the board that the judge should have

[00:10:20] Speaker 05:
done a more, done something.

[00:10:22] Speaker 04:
Am I wrong about that?

[00:10:24] Speaker 04:
I don't recall any reference to the categorical approach in the, in the appeal to the board.

[00:10:31] Speaker 04:
And if you could point me to it, I would greatly appreciate it.

[00:10:35] Speaker 05:
I'm looking at CAR 14.

[00:10:37] Speaker 05:
She said the judge, IJ failed to perform a categorical analysis of her conviction.

[00:10:45] Speaker 05:
That's, it seems that's an argument made below.

[00:10:50] Speaker 05:
I'm not sure it's the argument being made now, but there was some mention of the categorical analysis in the briefing below.

[00:10:58] Speaker 02:
Was that enough?

[00:10:59] Speaker 02:
Well, separate and apart from that, I guess I'd also point you to AR 15 where petitioners briefed the BIA argued that she was eligible for cancellation of removal despite her convictions.

[00:11:10] Speaker 02:
Why isn't that enough?

[00:11:12] Speaker 04:
I'm sorry, you're pointing to 15.

[00:11:15] Speaker 04:
Well, this entire argument in before the board, by the way, has to do with crimes involving moral turpitude.

[00:11:22] Speaker 04:
It has absolutely nothing to do with control substance effects.

[00:11:25] Speaker 04:
So he was arguing a complete he was actually arguing an entirely different section.

[00:11:31] Speaker 03:
Of eleven eighty two and or qualify as a C I M T and I agree that it's a bit fuzzy at best, but I'm wishing that you would engage in the substance of the argument just in case we don't agree with you on the exhaustion point.

[00:11:47] Speaker 04:
Well, I don't think that what that she exhausted the categorical approach.

[00:11:51] Speaker 03:
Is that the question?

[00:11:52] Speaker 03:
I think you very clearly stated you don't think that she exhausted.

[00:11:56] Speaker 03:
And we can look at the record on this point.

[00:11:57] Speaker 03:
It does seem to me to be questionable.

[00:11:59] Speaker 03:
But I'm just asking you to turn to perhaps engage with the argument, if you could, on the merits.

[00:12:07] Speaker 04:
Regarding her eligibility for cancellation?

[00:12:09] Speaker 03:
Regarding the categorical match.

[00:12:10] Speaker 03:
So the first question on the categorical match is the one we discussed, which is whether or not it's sufficient.

[00:12:15] Speaker 03:
to just look at and accept as an evidentiary matter, accept the admissions by petitioner in lieu of a categorical analysis?

[00:12:29] Speaker 04:
Well, I think that this court has made it quite clear, Your Honor, under Godoy that it is a categorical match.

[00:12:37] Speaker 03:
Well, you're not answering my question, though.

[00:12:40] Speaker 03:
The question that's all right.

[00:12:42] Speaker 03:
Maybe I wasn't clear.

[00:12:43] Speaker 03:
My question is,

[00:12:44] Speaker 03:
setting aside whether it's a categorical match, because I actually think that's quite debatable.

[00:12:50] Speaker 03:
It seems to me that there's a strong argument that the California statute is facially overbroad.

[00:12:55] Speaker 03:
But what I wonder is whether we would ever reach it.

[00:12:57] Speaker 03:
In other words, even if this is exhausted, it seems to me that our Ortiz opinion says that we can rely on, it wasn't error, to rely upon her admission.

[00:13:07] Speaker 04:
Absolutely.

[00:13:07] Speaker 04:
Absolutely.

[00:13:08] Speaker 04:
You can absolutely rely on the Ortiz decision to rely on her.

[00:13:13] Speaker 04:
admissions.

[00:13:15] Speaker 04:
And by the way, there was nothing in the immigration judge's questioning about her convictions that was inappropriate, and I can address that as well.

[00:13:25] Speaker 04:
There were, I think, the petitioner accuses the immigration judge of asking closed-ended questions about the drug at issue, and clearly she was being asked open-ended questions.

[00:13:38] Speaker 04:
I would also point out to the court, so I think that under Godoy and also the fact that she admitted that she had these convictions, she not only admitted the conviction, she admitted that the month of the conviction that the immigration judge was raising was the wrong month.

[00:13:54] Speaker 03:
OK, could I stop you because you went to Godoy again?

[00:13:57] Speaker 03:
And I'm trying to make sure that I understand your argument.

[00:14:00] Speaker 03:
Is your argument under Godoy that these two statutes are a categorical match, or is the government relying upon the other position, which is that we don't need to get to the categorical analysis because the IJ was permissible to rely upon the admission?

[00:14:19] Speaker 04:
Right.

[00:14:19] Speaker 04:
I would make both arguments in the alternative.

[00:14:22] Speaker 04:
I would first argue that you don't need to get to the categorical match.

[00:14:25] Speaker 04:
I still don't believe that I would say first and foremost, I don't think that he exhausted the categorical match.

[00:14:30] Speaker 04:
But even if he did, you don't get to the categorical match because of Ortiz.

[00:14:35] Speaker 04:
And if you did get to categorical match, this court has repeatedly found that it is a categorical match.

[00:14:40] Speaker 04:
So that would be the flow of my arguments.

[00:14:44] Speaker 05:
And can I just explore the parts of that argument?

[00:14:48] Speaker 05:
And I'm not sure they come up in this case.

[00:14:50] Speaker 05:
Let's say I believe that her testimony is sufficient to establish that she had a California conviction for possession of methamphetamine.

[00:15:00] Speaker 05:
And our case law says that California methamphetamine statute is a categorical match.

[00:15:06] Speaker 05:
They seem to be making a slightly different argument now.

[00:15:10] Speaker 05:
It may not have been exhausted, but I want to ask you about it.

[00:15:13] Speaker 05:
They seem to be saying, well, what we should have said

[00:15:17] Speaker 05:
was that because the California statute prohibits the possession of analogues, it is broader than the Controlled Substances Act, and some courts have explored that issue.

[00:15:30] Speaker 05:
Assuming that issue has been preserved and assuming it's in front of us, what's your position on that?

[00:15:39] Speaker 04:
it has been exhausted.

[00:15:42] Speaker 04:
And I know you understand our position on that.

[00:15:46] Speaker 04:
I mean, there's just nothing approaching anything like that being and I don't know that I'm prepared at this moment in time based on the record in this case to discuss

[00:15:58] Speaker 04:
isomers and analogs and all of those things, because I think we're getting possibly, I'm happy to engage in supplemental briefing if it would assist the court.

[00:16:09] Speaker 05:
That's fine.

[00:16:10] Speaker 05:
One other question.

[00:16:11] Speaker 05:
Has the BIA addressed that issue?

[00:16:15] Speaker 05:
There's lots of district court opinions addressing it, and there's some court of appeals opinions addressing it.

[00:16:21] Speaker 05:
They're not all the California statute, but has the BIA addressed it?

[00:16:26] Speaker 04:
You know, off the top of my head, Your Honor, I apologize.

[00:16:29] Speaker 04:
I don't know of a board decision off the top of my head.

[00:16:32] Speaker 04:
But again, if the court is interested in that issue and would like me to research it, the parties can research it and engage in supplemental briefing.

[00:16:41] Speaker 02:
Again, I don't think it was a... Counsel, counsel, who had the burden of proof to identify that this argument that Judge Hurwitz

[00:16:52] Speaker 02:
identified here that there is not a categorical match because this is an analog and the California statute is broader.

[00:17:00] Speaker 02:
Who would have had the burden of proof to raise and prove that issue in front of the IGA?

[00:17:07] Speaker 04:
First and foremost, it is petitioner's burden to establish their eligibility for relief and it is petitioner's burden

[00:17:21] Speaker 04:
to exhaust all of the specific issues such that the court, such that the board can pass on the issue.

[00:17:32] Speaker 04:
And the board did not, was not.

[00:17:34] Speaker 02:
So here, I understand the petitioner's argument to be that the IJ did not explore in more detail or ask questions about

[00:17:46] Speaker 02:
the offense that if this was, she admitted that this was a methamphetamine offense.

[00:17:52] Speaker 02:
But then as I understand it and I read the record, Petitioner did nothing more at that point to say, well, there is a problem as between the California statute and the possibility that it is broader and doesn't account for a methamphetamine analog.

[00:18:11] Speaker 02:
So where I'm struggling is if it's the petitioner's burden and I think that

[00:18:16] Speaker 02:
Pareda v. Wilkinson Supreme Court case, it makes clear that it's the petitioner's burden in this particular instance.

[00:18:23] Speaker 02:
I don't see anything in the record where petitioner actually raises this issue and argues it specifically to meet her burden of proof.

[00:18:33] Speaker 04:
That's exactly right.

[00:18:33] Speaker 04:
The petitioner never raised that issue.

[00:18:39] Speaker 04:
to the board.

[00:18:41] Speaker 02:
I think the petitioner raised the issue with respect to seeking relief but didn't meet her burden of proof and I think those two things are different.

[00:18:52] Speaker 02:
I'm not talking about exhaustion here.

[00:18:53] Speaker 02:
I'm talking about the burden before the agency.

[00:18:57] Speaker 04:
You're exactly right Judge Desai.

[00:18:59] Speaker 04:
In fact,

[00:18:59] Speaker 04:
What petitioners council did was mostly argued that she was not removable under INA section 237, which is the board pointed out was not even the section that was relevant here.

[00:19:11] Speaker 04:
So, I mean, again, I'm not going to say that the council did a great job.

[00:19:18] Speaker 04:
I'm disappointed that they didn't file a motion to reopen for ineffective assistance of council, potentially.

[00:19:23] Speaker 04:
That's another avenue that they could have taken, but they didn't take any of those avenues.

[00:19:28] Speaker 04:
And if I could just address for one quick second.

[00:19:31] Speaker 03:
Excuse me.

[00:19:33] Speaker 03:
It will be one quick second because you're a minute over time.

[00:19:35] Speaker 03:
So please wrap up.

[00:19:36] Speaker 03:
OK.

[00:19:37] Speaker 04:
OK.

[00:19:37] Speaker 04:
Sorry.

[00:19:37] Speaker 04:
Thank you so much.

[00:19:38] Speaker 04:
I just wanted to mention that the petitioner accuses the government of speculating about the existence of the conviction documents

[00:19:45] Speaker 04:
and an I-213 before the court in their reply brief.

[00:19:49] Speaker 04:
And I would just direct the court's attention to AR-12 and AR-14 where petitioners counsel specifically referenced an I-213 and criminal conviction documents that were before the immigration judge and obviously were also in front of counsel.

[00:20:06] Speaker 04:
Again, this was a procedural error and they had a duty to raise it.

[00:20:10] Speaker 04:
because procedural errors that are correctable by the tribunal must be exhausted.

[00:20:14] Speaker 04:
I want to thank everyone.

[00:20:15] Speaker 04:
And so this may be my last oral argument for the government.

[00:20:19] Speaker 04:
So I just want to say it's been a pleasure and a joy to argue before the Ninth Circuit for 18 years.

[00:20:25] Speaker 04:
And I appreciate it.

[00:20:27] Speaker 04:
And Your Honors, I do respectfully request that the court deny the petition for review in this case.

[00:20:33] Speaker 03:
Thank you for your service, Council.

[00:20:35] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:20:36] Speaker 03:
And congratulations.

[00:20:37] Speaker 03:
We're going to hear from, I think we have, do we have three more minutes on the clock, Madam Clerk?

[00:20:43] Speaker 03:
Okay, we're going to hear the rebuttal.

[00:20:45] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:20:47] Speaker 01:
Good morning your honors my name is Leslie six those crews and I have two issues on rebuttal the first being the fair hearing specifically addressing ineligibility for cancellation of removal and the second being Judge you did ask which is our best argument here, and that would be the uvisa So going to those cancellation of removal for ineligibility here the having the criminal convictions in the record is vital to assessing Eligibility for relief for removal for miscos you can I ask you right there?

[00:21:13] Speaker 03:
What's your position about why we don't have them in the record given that we've got?

[00:21:17] Speaker 03:
admissions.

[00:21:19] Speaker 01:
Your honor we don't have him in the record because Ms.

[00:21:21] Speaker 01:
Casillas-Varacha was in detention when she was first heard her notice to appear at immigration court at the master calendar hearing and then counsel was retained just three days prior so on the record counsel stated that he was not prepared to present a defense he went into the master calendar hearing thinking this was going to be I'm only I know your time is ticking away here so I'm just gonna ask this one more time my question is why wasn't it why was it error

[00:21:45] Speaker 03:
for the IJ to rely upon her admissions, that she had those prior convictions.

[00:21:51] Speaker 03:
Is it because you think she wasn't represented, or there wasn't time to prepare, or what is it?

[00:21:55] Speaker 01:
I would say the latter, Your Honor.

[00:21:56] Speaker 01:
She didn't have time to prepare.

[00:21:58] Speaker 01:
I understand that.

[00:22:00] Speaker 02:
So let's assume that it's true that she had.

[00:22:05] Speaker 02:
She just orally testified with respect to her prior conviction.

[00:22:10] Speaker 02:
I asked your friend on the other side this question.

[00:22:12] Speaker 02:
I'm curious to know your position.

[00:22:13] Speaker 02:
When the petitioner is seeking relief from removal, it's the petitioner's burden to introduce evidence showing that the petitioner was convicted of an offense that does not carry immigration consequences under PARATA.

[00:22:25] Speaker 02:
So how do you overcome that burden?

[00:22:31] Speaker 02:
Because she doesn't introduce any additional evidence.

[00:22:35] Speaker 02:
And that's her burden to be able to show that this

[00:22:40] Speaker 02:
that there aren't immigration consequences for the particular methamphetamine offense that she had been previously convicted of.

[00:22:47] Speaker 01:
That's right, Your Honor.

[00:22:48] Speaker 01:
Yes, the petitioner does have the burden of proof in this case.

[00:22:50] Speaker 01:
But the immigration judge also has a duty to ensure a fair hearing.

[00:22:54] Speaker 01:
And that wasn't given in this case, Your Honor.

[00:22:56] Speaker 01:
We have precedent decided by this circuit under OSHOD and array that an immigration judge must ensure a non-citizen with a fair hearing.

[00:23:03] Speaker 02:
But how do you reconcile that with the burden that the petitioner has?

[00:23:07] Speaker 02:
It's not the immigration.

[00:23:09] Speaker 02:
court's responsibility to make arguments or raise arguments that haven't been presented to it in the first instance.

[00:23:16] Speaker 02:
So I don't disagree with you with respect to our president, but there's still an obligation for the petitioner to meet her burden.

[00:23:24] Speaker 01:
That's right, Your Honor.

[00:23:24] Speaker 01:
And we have two statutes under the INA, starting with 8 U.S.C.

[00:23:28] Speaker 01:
Section 1229 AC3B, as well as B4B.

[00:23:32] Speaker 01:
Under the first statute, we have a list of proof of criminal convictions to be included in the record, and oral admission is not one of them.

[00:23:39] Speaker 01:
And in the second statute, Your Honor, the noncitizen has a right to present evidence in this case, and she wasn't given that right.

[00:23:45] Speaker 01:
So had to talk about that.

[00:23:46] Speaker 05:
Can I ask you about that?

[00:23:49] Speaker 05:
Because I'm confused about that argument.

[00:23:53] Speaker 05:
did develop the record in the sense that he said to the petitioner, do you have any criminal convictions?

[00:24:01] Speaker 05:
And then inquired about them.

[00:24:03] Speaker 05:
And so I don't think the IJ just set by idly at this point.

[00:24:09] Speaker 05:
But it's the second point I'm trying to figure out, how was she prevented by the IJ from making any of the arguments you're making today?

[00:24:18] Speaker 01:
Well, Your Honor, starting in the transcript, starting on page 47 and therefore, we have there the attorney requesting relief, starting with the U visa and counseling assurances of removal.

[00:24:27] Speaker 01:
And there, the immigration judge cut the attorney off, saying, one, she doesn't have jurisdiction for a U visa, which we disagree on.

[00:24:33] Speaker 03:
That's the U visa issue.

[00:24:34] Speaker 03:
Judge Hurwitz, please.

[00:24:35] Speaker 03:
I'm trying to focus on the conviction.

[00:24:36] Speaker 03:
Judge Hurwitz, hang on.

[00:24:37] Speaker 03:
Sorry.

[00:24:37] Speaker 03:
Could you slow down?

[00:24:38] Speaker 03:
Because I can't understand you.

[00:24:39] Speaker 03:
I want to hear what you have to say.

[00:24:41] Speaker 03:
And then I'd ask you to listen to Judge Hurwitz restate his question so you can answer it.

[00:24:45] Speaker 03:
I really can't understand what you're saying.

[00:24:47] Speaker 03:
Just take another run at that.

[00:24:49] Speaker 01:
Right.

[00:24:49] Speaker 01:
So if I understood the judge's question correctly is what precluded Ms.

[00:24:53] Speaker 01:
Casillas-Waracha from seeking relief from removal.

[00:24:57] Speaker 01:
And I'd like to say first that the attorney at the master county hearing presented two forms of relief from removal.

[00:25:03] Speaker 01:
The first being a U visa petition and the second being cancellation of removal.

[00:25:07] Speaker 01:
The U visa petition was disregarded by the immigration judge because she said she does not have jurisdiction.

[00:25:12] Speaker 01:
to adjudicate a waiver, which we disagree on, and second, that she is ineligible for a cancellation of removal because of her good moral character due to the- So we understand that, but you would turn to the transcript and be explaining what the problem was with the transcript, and you want us to look at what page?

[00:25:28] Speaker 02:
Your Honor, specifically, we have here- You were talking about ER 47, where the judge

[00:25:35] Speaker 02:
basically cut off the council and said I don't have jurisdiction of the U visa issue and you were pointing to that evidence as

[00:25:43] Speaker 02:
the basis for not allowing her to develop her argument with respect to the cancellation of removal on the methamphetamine conviction.

[00:25:50] Speaker 02:
And I see those two things as sort of conflating.

[00:25:53] Speaker 02:
And of course, the judge is going to say, I don't have jurisdiction.

[00:25:55] Speaker 02:
I'm not going to hear any more on that.

[00:25:57] Speaker 02:
But how does that go to Judge Hurwitz's question that how did that prevent her from introducing evidence with respect to her prior conviction not being a categorical match?

[00:26:09] Speaker 01:
Your Honor, if I'm understanding your question correctly, is how was she precluded from presenting evidence into the record?

[00:26:14] Speaker 01:
Correct.

[00:26:15] Speaker 01:
And so with the immigration judge precluding or pre-terminating those options for removal, as in U visa and cancellation of removal, at the master calendar hearing, Ms.

[00:26:23] Speaker 01:
Casillas-Warachat was ineligible or didn't have the opportunity to explore other forms of relief.

[00:26:28] Speaker 01:
And that would be a pre-hearing voluntary departure, withholding a removal, as well as convention against torture.

[00:26:34] Speaker 01:
And those forms of relief do not require a good moral character.

[00:26:37] Speaker 03:
Counsel, hold on.

[00:26:39] Speaker 05:
I'm going to just ask you to listen to Judge Herbert's question again so we can get... Yeah, I still think we're missing each other, but I think it's been asked a couple times now.

[00:26:49] Speaker 05:
I don't see anything in this record where the IJ said, I'm not going to hear anything more about your prior convictions.

[00:26:56] Speaker 05:
I'm not going to let you put in any evidence.

[00:26:59] Speaker 05:
Am I correct in reading the record that way?

[00:27:01] Speaker 05:
I would disagree, Your Honor, and actually if we turn to... Tell me where in the record there's contrary indication other than when the IJ says, I don't have jurisdiction to hear the U visa application.

[00:27:12] Speaker 01:
Right, Your Honor.

[00:27:13] Speaker 01:
So after the second time the immigration judge said she isn't eligible for counselation or removal, in the last page of this transcript, and I believe if I have it right, starting page 53 and 54, the attorney said, well, I have not looked at the record.

[00:27:28] Speaker 01:
I'm not prepared to present anything else in the defense.

[00:27:30] Speaker 01:
There, the immigration judge says, OK, well, do you just want to take this case up to appeal?

[00:27:34] Speaker 01:
And the attorney did reserve for appeal.

[00:27:37] Speaker 01:
So right then and there, within a matter of minutes, we're literally talking five to ten minutes.

[00:27:41] Speaker 01:
This is how long the master counter hearing lasted.

[00:27:44] Speaker 01:
There were no other options for relief to be introduced in that matter.

[00:27:48] Speaker 03:
Counsel, you're about almost four minutes over time, so I think they're just going to ask you, in response to Judge Hurwitz's question, a minute ago you said she was cut off, and he's asked you, where is that?

[00:27:57] Speaker 03:
Is it page 54, 53, 54?

[00:28:00] Speaker 03:
Are those the pages you want us to look at?

[00:28:03] Speaker 03:
That's kind of a yes or no when you're out of time, so.

[00:28:06] Speaker 03:
Yes, yes.

[00:28:08] Speaker 03:
Those are the pages?

[00:28:08] Speaker 03:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:28:09] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:28:09] Speaker 03:
I want to thank you for your patience with our questions and thank you all for participating on a pro bono basis.

[00:28:15] Speaker 03:
We appreciate your help very much.

[00:28:17] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:28:18] Speaker 03:
We'll take that matter under advice.