[00:00:06] Speaker 04:
Good afternoon your honors.

[00:00:07] Speaker 03:
Good afternoon.

[00:00:08] Speaker 04:
So my name is Fabian Serato, and I represent the petitioner in this case Your honors as you've probably read in the brief I think matter of Los on it has to go at this point if the in this case what I'm requesting is that That onerous type of requirement are you saying?

[00:00:27] Speaker 03:
That it's not good law anymore not good law anymore correct every other every what's your basis for that?

[00:00:33] Speaker ?:
I?

[00:00:33] Speaker 04:
Every other practice of law, criminal, civil, doesn't matter in California, they have a way, if an attorney messes up on a case, they have a way to remedy that.

[00:00:43] Speaker 04:
And you don't necessarily have to file a bark complaint.

[00:00:44] Speaker 01:
So let's just assume we disagree with you about that.

[00:00:48] Speaker 01:
Has Lozada been satisfied in this case?

[00:00:51] Speaker 04:
It has not been satisfied in this case because, as the court has cited before, when error is noted from the record, it's not necessary to complete Lozada requirements.

[00:01:02] Speaker 03:
Well you're in a little uncomfortable position because you're the one that committed the IAC and here you are sitting in front of us.

[00:01:08] Speaker 04:
I am.

[00:01:09] Speaker 03:
All right.

[00:01:10] Speaker 03:
And that what your clients did not report you to the state bar and it makes me uncomfortable to think that maybe you told them don't report me to the state bar and I'll fix all of this.

[00:01:25] Speaker 03:
No.

[00:01:25] Speaker 03:
And so that not reporting them to the state bar

[00:01:30] Speaker 01:
Is makes you not you it's not complied with lazada and so What why didn't you self report it since it sounds to me as you stand here before us that you are acknowledging that you committed Malpractice that you were ineffective I did and and you understand that your failure to have filed a brief not just in this case, but in other cases creates a significant

[00:01:58] Speaker 01:
Problem for your clients and so I'm very unclear as to why you haven't taken appropriate remedial measures Well, I have your honor in this case what I've done is I told them look I messed up I told my clients I messed up and let me try and fix this for you without I want to put something in the record though at this time because we're here for two cases today the only two cases that we have for argument

[00:02:23] Speaker 03:
It's not the same representative of the government in each case.

[00:02:26] Speaker 03:
So we'll be hearing from both of you.

[00:02:28] Speaker 03:
And of course, it's not exactly the factually the same, but you're telling the same story.

[00:02:33] Speaker 03:
You didn't file briefs in 24-1033, which we're arguing right now, but then you're going to get up again and you're still going to look like Mr. Serato with the mask on.

[00:02:43] Speaker 03:
All right.

[00:02:44] Speaker 03:
And then you're going to tell me again, and this panel that you committed malpractice and that's 24-1309.

[00:02:52] Speaker 03:
So it isn't, as Judge Desai said, it's not, oops, only did it one time, just today.

[00:03:01] Speaker 03:
It's, oops, I did it at least twice.

[00:03:03] Speaker 03:
Twice for sure, yes.

[00:03:05] Speaker 03:
Heaven knows how many times.

[00:03:07] Speaker 04:
No, just twice, Your Honor.

[00:03:08] Speaker 03:
Well, pardon me if I say I'm not sure.

[00:03:14] Speaker 04:
Yeah, no your honor and I'll tell you in this case this they switch to being sending paper files to sending emails when the when the brief was due and some of those emails got lost along the way.

[00:03:25] Speaker 01:
The explanation really doesn't matter.

[00:03:28] Speaker 01:
What's concerning to me is that you understand you're invoking Lozado as a potential basis for reopening, and there are clearly factors.

[00:03:39] Speaker 01:
I think we might disagree.

[00:03:42] Speaker 01:
Others may disagree about exactly which factors need to be satisfied at what level of stringency, but in any event, you know that one of the things that you ought to do is to

[00:03:54] Speaker 01:
remove yourself from this case, and so that the appropriate factors, the steps, including a bar complaint, may be filed or a self-report may be filed.

[00:04:04] Speaker 01:
And that's the part I don't understand.

[00:04:06] Speaker 01:
Is it just because you really don't think Lozado is good law anymore, and so therefore you're not trying to satisfy the factors, even if that's in the best interest of your client?

[00:04:15] Speaker 04:
Well, Your Honor, in this case, I thought the best interest of my client was that I would try and remedy this without charge.

[00:04:21] Speaker 04:
You know, I screwed up.

[00:04:21] Speaker 04:
I'm sorry.

[00:04:22] Speaker 04:
Let me try and fix this.

[00:04:23] Speaker 03:
But here's the other thing, though.

[00:04:25] Speaker 03:
You don't even come here and tell me what the prejudice would be.

[00:04:29] Speaker 03:
And if, so you could have, you didn't file briefs, okay.

[00:04:34] Speaker 03:
But from my perspective, and I'm only speaking for myself right now because we conference about these cases after and we make our decisions after oral argument.

[00:04:46] Speaker 03:
There are cases out there that say you still have the burden to show prejudice and I'm having a hard time looking at this.

[00:04:55] Speaker 03:
While I feel sorry for your client that you didn't do this, but if there's absolutely no way that your client can get any relief.

[00:05:05] Speaker 03:
I'm not going to give your client relief just because you made a mistake.

[00:05:09] Speaker 03:
If there is no, what is the path?

[00:05:12] Speaker 03:
You can make a mistake, but I don't see any path or any relief for your client.

[00:05:17] Speaker 03:
And you don't even talk about prejudice here.

[00:05:19] Speaker 03:
And the court does.

[00:05:23] Speaker 04:
And in this case, we did explain that her asylum case was the prejudice was the court wasn't able to evaluate her asylum claim.

[00:05:34] Speaker 02:
I try to lay it out in my brief the claim that she had for asylum, so you know counsel What are your clients plausible grounds for relief because I'm trying to ask basically the same question Judge Callahan just in a nicer way?

[00:05:47] Speaker 02:
There's what are the plausible?

[00:05:49] Speaker 04:
Grounds for relief for your client well I was arguing that she would be eligible for asylum withholding and cat and so the really what basis on the basis of that she was abused by her

[00:06:03] Speaker 04:
Her husband her ex-husband and so because of that she was she was singled out as a woman only unable to leave the relationship so with the basis of her claim Council are you charging your client?

[00:06:17] Speaker 04:
Absolutely not absolutely not I Promise you under whatever it is.

[00:06:22] Speaker 04:
I am NOT charging my client as a matter of fact I paid for all the filing fees everything out of my pocket I refunded her her money for the BIA appeal because I screwed up

[00:06:32] Speaker 03:
I'm still not seeing how she gets relief.

[00:06:35] Speaker 03:
Those issues were litigated and I think the court found no nexus or there were, did she report any of these things?

[00:06:48] Speaker 03:
Because there was a little convoluted because they were in Spain, then she went back to Central America and then came to the United States.

[00:06:59] Speaker 03:
So on Kat,

[00:07:01] Speaker 03:
Was she what do you what showing do you have?

[00:07:05] Speaker 03:
under cat Well just I saw nothing yeah under cat you're right your honor probably nothing there under cat no one and under with what?

[00:07:15] Speaker 03:
What's her persecution or what has I didn't the court find no nexus?

[00:07:20] Speaker 01:
It did find no nexus your honor, but in this case we were a factor for Seeking cat relief no, it's not a factor for seeking so I'm not

[00:07:28] Speaker 01:
explain to me how where you see that the BIA made a finding with respect to no prejudice on on the cat claim because what I'm looking at AR for at the very last paragraph here what appears to me and of course we have to get past the Lazado to even get to the prejudice analysis here but assuming we're at the prejudice analysis it seems to me that the BIA did

[00:07:55] Speaker 01:
address both the Asylum and withholding of removal claims by addressing the fact that there was no established Nexus here But what I don't see is any analysis with respect to the cat claim

[00:08:10] Speaker 04:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:08:11] Speaker 04:
In this case, what we argued was that because the husband is a private actor, the government is failing to protect her in her country.

[00:08:20] Speaker 04:
So that's why we're alleging that she is eligible for CAT as well, because she had incidents of domestic violence, and she was never protected.

[00:08:27] Speaker 03:
Did she ever report it?

[00:08:29] Speaker 04:
No.

[00:08:30] Speaker 03:
OK.

[00:08:33] Speaker 03:
Any other questions?

[00:08:34] Speaker 03:
OK.

[00:08:35] Speaker 03:
We'll let you reserve the balance for rebuttal.

[00:08:37] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:08:37] Speaker 03:
Do you want to reserve that for rebuttal?

[00:08:38] Speaker 03:
Please, Your Honor.

[00:08:39] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:08:44] Speaker 03:
All right, we're ready for the government.

[00:08:55] Speaker 03:
Good afternoon.

[00:08:56] Speaker 00:
Good afternoon, may it please the court.

[00:08:57] Speaker 00:
Richard Sanford on behalf of the attorney general.

[00:09:01] Speaker 00:
The board did not abuse its discretion denying the motion reopen this case.

[00:09:07] Speaker 00:
At the outset,

[00:09:08] Speaker 00:
the board recognized there was a lack of prejudice apart from anything else in terms of that petitioner.

[00:09:14] Speaker 00:
The board did not abuse its discretion in determining that there was no prejudice.

[00:09:21] Speaker 03:
So I know when discussing prejudice and I think that Judge Desai touched on this, the BIA opinion can be read, one way you could read it, to mean that it considered the issue only with respect to the IJ's nexus determination

[00:09:38] Speaker 03:
which would mean petitioners cannot show prejudice for their asylum or withholding claims.

[00:09:43] Speaker 03:
Did the BIA reach the issue of prejudice for the petitioner's cat claim?

[00:09:47] Speaker 00:
We think they did insofar as the claim itself fell short.

[00:09:50] Speaker 00:
But what's important is that this was a Grava-style claim made below.

[00:09:54] Speaker 01:
What you're really arguing is more of a harmless error analysis, right?

[00:09:58] Speaker 01:
You're not saying that the BIA, because I would like you to point me to where in this decision the BIA

[00:10:05] Speaker 01:
Addressed prejudice with respect to the cat claim, but I think maybe what you're saying is a little different Which is at the core of the claim?

[00:10:12] Speaker 01:
There's nothing there that likely if it were to go back She would not be able to obtain relief because she didn't complain about the government acquiescence Etc.

[00:10:23] Speaker 00:
Yes sure and that's where you touch on the futility section of the red brief But I guess as a larger point I think what we're saying is when the board looks at at the at the case there was no

[00:10:32] Speaker 00:
glaring error jumping off the page saying, well, wait a second, we see something that's gone wrong here.

[00:10:36] Speaker 00:
Because this was a Grava-style claim, meaning the petitioner didn't make a, there was no case in chief, if you will.

[00:10:44] Speaker 00:
She relied on her declaration.

[00:10:47] Speaker 00:
And then, in fact, actually, I think the only question on direct was the immigration judge asking her how old she was, and then it moved directly into cross because her claim was built out by the actual affidavit under Grava.

[00:10:57] Speaker 00:
There was a couple, I think, Madeline, only one question on redirect, in fact.

[00:11:02] Speaker 01:
So... Can we presume a finding if one isn't made?

[00:11:05] Speaker 01:
Even if we were to agree with you that nothing jumps out as being, you know, potentially the basis for a successful claim, if there's no finding by the BIA with respect to prejudice on the CAT claim, what do we do with that?

[00:11:22] Speaker 01:
Because we can't presume a finding that doesn't exist.

[00:11:25] Speaker 00:
Well, so of course, for sure, there's a futility argument there.

[00:11:29] Speaker 00:
But also, the BIA reacted to what the claim was made below.

[00:11:33] Speaker 00:
So in other words, for instance, some petitioners may not even check the box for CAT.

[00:11:38] Speaker 00:
Now, in this case, they did, but they just didn't advance a claim.

[00:11:41] Speaker 00:
You have to actually say something in support of your claim to actually make a claim out for the board to review and decide if there was a mistake made in the first place.

[00:11:48] Speaker 00:
So in fact, this is at pages 25 to 27 of the red brief.

[00:11:55] Speaker 00:
which addresses to Your Honor's point about if there is harmless error, what good does it do, because we're bouncing the case back and forth.

[00:12:03] Speaker 00:
But when the applicant applies for, in this case, foreign protection, CAT, they need to at least advance something to say, this is the government entity that will harm me, or this is the willful blindness that the government will engage in to harm me.

[00:12:20] Speaker 00:
In this case, the government arrested the ex-husband in Spain.

[00:12:24] Speaker 00:
Part of this no-prejudice finding was the board recognizing this is an applicant who fears, as Your Honor noted, returning to Central America because of the acts of a person in Spain who then sent her a threat referencing another person in Spain that she looked up on Facebook and said, well, my fear is in Spain.

[00:12:43] Speaker 00:
I no longer feel comfortable being in El Salvador, so I'm going to go ahead and go to the United States.

[00:12:51] Speaker 00:
all in there about government action.

[00:12:53] Speaker 00:
If the husband was, for instance, a police officer, or if the husband had made some sort of government action take place, or it's something to advance a cat claim, but he didn't.

[00:13:03] Speaker 00:
The claim here was based on the husband.

[00:13:05] Speaker 00:
There was not even a suggestion the husband was going to somehow direct government action or deliberate government inaction.

[00:13:10] Speaker 00:
In this case, the government took action, the government of Spain, by the way.

[00:13:14] Speaker 00:
And her fear is, I'm sorry, because her fear is government of El Salvador,

[00:13:19] Speaker 00:
what we have is the government of Spain that actually took action.

[00:13:24] Speaker 03:
So I would also... So, but the abuse that she's complaining about happened in Spain?

[00:13:29] Speaker 03:
All of it, Your Honor.

[00:13:30] Speaker 03:
Not in El Salvador?

[00:13:31] Speaker 00:
That's correct.

[00:13:33] Speaker 03:
So at the first step, I heard that... I'm not sure exactly what... I'm going to assume that Losada is still good law.

[00:13:45] Speaker 03:
I haven't heard that to be overruled.

[00:13:49] Speaker 03:
But that being said, he said it's out the window.

[00:13:53] Speaker 03:
And there are some cases that, albeit around, that it talks about, if you don't file an appellate brief, that that is incompetence per se.

[00:14:09] Speaker 03:
Does that melt away?

[00:14:12] Speaker 03:
Does that eliminate the prejudice prong?

[00:14:15] Speaker 00:
It does not.

[00:14:15] Speaker 00:
In fact, Hernandez Ortiz, which the board cited and is also cited in the red brief, points out if we can actually understand the substance of the claim that was made.

[00:14:23] Speaker 00:
In other words, the applicant was not reasonably precluded from making the claim, in this case, which we understand the claim to be.

[00:14:29] Speaker 00:
We understand the claim all too well because it was done in a written affidavit form because it was a Grava-style claim.

[00:14:34] Speaker 00:
So we understand the claim that was made here.

[00:14:36] Speaker 00:
We'd also, I would request supplemental briefing if the court's considering to say that Lozada is touching on

[00:14:45] Speaker 00:
37 years next week to the day.

[00:14:47] Speaker 00:
It's been good law for 36 years and 51 weeks.

[00:14:50] Speaker 00:
So we would want.

[00:14:51] Speaker 03:
He didn't say this, but it is post Loper bright.

[00:14:56] Speaker 03:
Although to be fair, it's not interpreting a statute, but yeah, no, I think that's that's a point well taken.

[00:15:03] Speaker 00:
And just if I could briefly and quickly mention matter of Milgar, which came out less recently in 2020.

[00:15:11] Speaker 00:
The

[00:15:12] Speaker 00:
The facts of Matter of Melgar and the facts of this case do closely resemble one another.

[00:15:18] Speaker 00:
The court has not spoken to Matter of Melgar except in four instances that I was able to find, I guess five cases technically, but four people, all unpublished.

[00:15:28] Speaker 00:
But Matter of Melgar advances the policy goals inherent in why it's important to self-report.

[00:15:36] Speaker 00:
There's critical points, especially pages 170 to 171.

[00:15:40] Speaker 01:
But Melgar does not reverse the holding that if ineffective assistance is obvious from the record, there is not this requirement.

[00:15:49] Speaker 01:
I mean, I understand what you're saying, but then we also have Rojas Garcia.

[00:15:53] Speaker 01:
So I mean, the two need to be reconciled, and I don't think you can read Melgar as broadly as you're reading it, which is to somehow say that if you have counsel that's continuing to represent you and there is no bar complaint,

[00:16:07] Speaker 01:
that that resolves the question of Lazada.

[00:16:10] Speaker 00:
And so I apologize.

[00:16:11] Speaker 00:
I'm not trying to push to say Melgar has a sweeping, sweeping change.

[00:16:14] Speaker 00:
But the policy goals that are enunciated in Melgar at 170 and 171 about why self-reporting is so important, I think what this court's spoken to is where if the three requirements of Lazada are not met line by line, as long as the policy goals of Lazada were still met, then there's wiggle room.

[00:16:34] Speaker 00:
In this case, the first requirement was not met.

[00:16:37] Speaker 00:
There was no affidavit from the client.

[00:16:38] Speaker 00:
We still haven't heard from the client in this case.

[00:16:40] Speaker 00:
And Madam Lozada, echoed by Melgar, points that out.

[00:16:42] Speaker 00:
That's a requirement.

[00:16:43] Speaker 00:
The second requirement sort of dissolves away because you're supposed to give almost like notice and opportunity to respond.

[00:16:49] Speaker 00:
You make the accusation.

[00:16:50] Speaker 00:
That's missing because we don't have the affidavit.

[00:16:52] Speaker 00:
We allow response from private bar counsel.

[00:16:54] Speaker 00:
We have that insofar as the private bar counsel made a mea culpa.

[00:16:57] Speaker 00:
Then we have the third app, the third requirement, which is the state bar requirement.

[00:17:02] Speaker 00:
I'm going to admit this is not the best

[00:17:07] Speaker 00:
metaphor, but if there's a driver out there who continually gets into fender benders and rear ends people over and over again, and then jumps out of the car and says, it's my fault, it's my fault.

[00:17:18] Speaker 00:
But here, here's some money.

[00:17:19] Speaker 00:
Do we have to go through this process of exchanging numbers?

[00:17:21] Speaker 01:
But you would agree with me, counsel, even based on the representations of counsel in court today, that this is a pretty clear and obvious case of ineffective assistance of counsel.

[00:17:31] Speaker 01:
That's pretty clear on the base of this case, right?

[00:17:35] Speaker 00:
I would suspect if this went to a state bar, they would likely find that.

[00:17:39] Speaker 00:
But the idea is if you do not participate in the process, you thwart oversight.

[00:17:44] Speaker 00:
And so we ask, we say, look, you rear-ended me, but you're saying, let's not get the insurance companies involved.

[00:17:52] Speaker 00:
Let's just hear some money, or my friend has a body shop.

[00:17:55] Speaker 00:
But no, no, no.

[00:17:56] Speaker 00:
We have to go through a process, because it allows for oversight.

[00:18:00] Speaker 00:
And so the board in Melgar, even in Lazada, points out,

[00:18:04] Speaker 00:
That oversight's necessary.

[00:18:05] Speaker 00:
That oversight is something that serves a purpose, because how many times, how many rear endings has this driver engaged in?

[00:18:13] Speaker 00:
We don't know, because they're not participating in the process.

[00:18:16] Speaker 03:
If you participate in them.

[00:18:18] Speaker 03:
OK, let's assume that Losada is still good law.

[00:18:21] Speaker 03:
OK, let's start there.

[00:18:23] Speaker 03:
But even Losada allows for some exceptions, and then it lets us go to the next step.

[00:18:31] Speaker 03:
And then there's prejudice has got to factor into this somehow.

[00:18:38] Speaker 03:
So I want to hear how, obviously, the first thing that you would just say is Losada was not satisfied.

[00:18:46] Speaker 03:
End of story here, right?

[00:18:48] Speaker 00:
I mean, the easy button is there's no prejudice.

[00:18:51] Speaker 00:
The most straightforward answer is to say there's no prejudice, but of course, the Petitions Council did not satisfy, arguably,

[00:18:59] Speaker 03:
And you're saying that you can keep answering because we have questions.

[00:19:02] Speaker 01:
You're saying that because you agree that the ineffective assistance of council, I mean, as you said, I think yourself, as long as the policy goals are met, the strict compliance with the Lozado factors aren't required.

[00:19:14] Speaker 01:
And so here we have a pretty egregious case of ineffective assistance of council that's apparent from the record.

[00:19:21] Speaker 01:
So it's easier to go to prejudice.

[00:19:22] Speaker 01:
That's what you can short circuit the Lozado analysis by

[00:19:26] Speaker 01:
just reaching prejudice.

[00:19:28] Speaker 01:
That's what you are urging this court to do.

[00:19:29] Speaker 00:
That is the most straightforward answer.

[00:19:32] Speaker 00:
The policy goals, though, of Luzardo are also to prevent this from happening again, the same way that Melgar comes out and re-emphasizes.

[00:19:38] Speaker 00:
Now, this court hasn't spoken to it four square, because in the other instances we found, when Melgar was published, the acts by the parties had already taken place.

[00:19:50] Speaker 00:
So it wasn't like then Melgar comes out.

[00:19:54] Speaker 00:
So in this case,

[00:19:56] Speaker 00:
Melgaard's already out.

[00:19:57] Speaker 00:
Everyone's aware of Melgaard.

[00:19:59] Speaker 00:
And Melgaard's emphasizing this is why it's so important, because we don't know how often this has happened if the person says, never mind the process, neglecting the ability to allow for oversight, which gets deprived of that.

[00:20:13] Speaker 03:
OK, on the prejudice problem, your position, tell me, is who has the burden?

[00:20:20] Speaker 00:
To move on.

[00:20:21] Speaker 03:
The move on to sort of the petitioner.

[00:20:25] Speaker 03:
Sorry.

[00:20:26] Speaker 03:
Right.

[00:20:27] Speaker 00:
So they call them the respondent below.

[00:20:29] Speaker 03:
So yes.

[00:20:30] Speaker 03:
But the if the petitioner has the burden, where in this record is there a showing of prejudice and how if you were writing, if you could be judged for a day, if you were writing this, how would you?

[00:20:47] Speaker 03:
Because I tend to and I'm only speaking for myself right now, I haven't heard

[00:20:52] Speaker 03:
I've heard that what petitioners council did was wrong.

[00:20:58] Speaker 03:
And that makes everyone feel sorry for the petitioners in that sense.

[00:21:03] Speaker 03:
But I haven't heard anything about prejudice.

[00:21:06] Speaker 03:
And so I'm trying to figure out that makes me that gives judges pause all the time if you think but for what the person did.

[00:21:16] Speaker 03:
they actually have a claim.

[00:21:18] Speaker 03:
So how do we how do I look at this record?

[00:21:21] Speaker 03:
How do I weave through Lazada prejudice?

[00:21:24] Speaker 03:
Where does it fit in?

[00:21:26] Speaker 00:
I think one of the phrases I'd use in if I were writing this issue is bad facts make bad law.

[00:21:31] Speaker 00:
And I would point out that the petitioners themselves still can metaphorically go to the state bar, participate in the process, obtain the oversight, leave that metaphorical building, carrying a document, bearing some sort of imprimatur from the state bar that says,

[00:21:45] Speaker 00:
Yes, we pronounce this to be ineffective assistance counsel that the applicants can then go to the board and say, here we are.

[00:21:52] Speaker 00:
We now have something from the state bar that says this is ineffective assistance.

[00:21:57] Speaker 00:
That's the alternative they have, because petitioners never responded to the personal dispute findings of the trial of fact below, that this was an unhappy marriage by an individual in Spain tormenting the petitioner, and that petitioner Riley

[00:22:15] Speaker 00:
managed to escape Spain to go to El Salvador.

[00:22:20] Speaker 00:
Only when she looked on Facebook and saw the picture of the individual did she decide she should go.

[00:22:24] Speaker 00:
That's not a claim that the INA is really designed to help, specifically with personal disputes.

[00:22:30] Speaker 00:
And to Your Honor's point about Kat, we have the same issue where, again, the agency looked at what was said to it in the Garava claim.

[00:22:42] Speaker 00:
affidavit to say, this is what my fears are, and it's Johnny.

[00:22:47] Speaker 00:
It's Johnny and an unknown man who I looked up on Facebook.

[00:22:51] Speaker 00:
The government is an intern to that.

[00:22:53] Speaker 00:
That doesn't demonstrate prejudice on top of bad facts making bad law.

[00:22:59] Speaker 03:
Any other questions?

[00:23:00] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:23:01] Speaker 00:
I appreciate your time.

[00:23:03] Speaker 03:
All right, so I'm going to give you three minutes for rebuttal since we've had, obviously, a number of questions.

[00:23:10] Speaker 03:
Yes, ma'am.

[00:23:11] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:23:12] Speaker 03:
It'll give you time to respond.

[00:23:13] Speaker 04:
Thank you are yes, and like I said in this case your I fell on my sword You know this was my mistake.

[00:23:18] Speaker 04:
I've been practicing 25 years I didn't want my clients to have to pay out to another attorney because it was my error right so I've been paying the filing fees I've been doing all the work for them, but you still kind of convinced me that your client has a path for Relief and I still haven't heard that I still haven't heard that

[00:23:38] Speaker 03:
still haven't heard how in your petition down there you established any cat relief and I still haven't heard that out of all of this that there's other than you know obviously everyone always wants a redo but that's not what appeals are correct your honor and I think in this case because she was able to she was credible with regard to her claims of being a victim of domestic violence and

[00:24:05] Speaker 04:
and not being assisted by the government.

[00:24:07] Speaker 04:
I think that's enough to show that even- Not be assisted by what government?

[00:24:11] Speaker 04:
Well, she says that in her declaration, she said she wasn't able to escape the relationship, so there were no options for her to try and find other forms of- But the relationship's in Spain.

[00:24:22] Speaker 03:
Correct.

[00:24:23] Speaker 03:
And there's no abuse in, is it El Salvador?

[00:24:27] Speaker 03:
El Salvador.

[00:24:28] Speaker 03:
There's no abuse there.

[00:24:29] Speaker 03:
There's no reports to anyone there.

[00:24:32] Speaker 03:
So what evidence is there?

[00:24:37] Speaker 04:
I think the evidence was just a declaration on this case.

[00:24:40] Speaker 04:
You know, she explained, I think, everything thoroughly in her declaration.

[00:24:44] Speaker 03:
So with what you're saying that based on the declaration, we should be able to say that she has shown that she has a path for relief.

[00:24:54] Speaker 04:
Yes.

[00:24:56] Speaker 03:
And you're falling on your sword because you didn't file a brief.

[00:24:59] Speaker 04:
That's correct.

[00:25:00] Speaker 04:
That's correct.

[00:25:01] Speaker 04:
It was my mistake.

[00:25:01] Speaker 03:
Is your client here today?

[00:25:02] Speaker 04:
No, she's not.

[00:25:03] Speaker 04:
But she knows I'm here today.

[00:25:06] Speaker 04:
And like I said, Your Honor, this is a mistake that I made.

[00:25:08] Speaker 04:
I mean, no one's perfect.

[00:25:10] Speaker 04:
And unfortunately, I could have easily just said, you know what, your case has been dismissed.

[00:25:14] Speaker 04:
But I was honest with her and said, look, I made a mistake.

[00:25:17] Speaker 04:
I'm going to file the appeal for you to see what we can do to help you.

[00:25:20] Speaker 03:
Well, OK, let's assume that you're not denying that or whatever.

[00:25:26] Speaker 03:
But if she has no path to relief, what is my path as a court to give her relief?

[00:25:34] Speaker 04:
Right I understand that your honor I think it's because as I mentioned she was the victim of domestic violence and because of that she suffered not only physical physical problems but also mental problems as well are you conceding that your client has no plausible claim for relief under cat I heard you say that in your in your opening remarks and I want to understand from you whether you are

[00:26:04] Speaker 01:
Conceding that there's no plausible claim for cat relief major Frank with the court.

[00:26:08] Speaker 03:
Yes, I probably think so Okay, was there anything additional that you wanted to say to her nothing else.

[00:26:16] Speaker 03:
Thank you any additional questions Thank you.

[00:26:19] Speaker 03:
We'll stay put because you'll be back.

[00:26:21] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:26:21] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:26:22] Speaker 03:
Thank you You're switching is that what you was that I?

[00:26:28] Speaker 03:
It wasn't that I didn't hear you.

[00:26:33] Speaker 03:
Yeah.

[00:26:34] Speaker 03:
I know there's someone else coming.

[00:26:35] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:26:37] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:26:38] Speaker 03:
And you can stay and watch if you want.

[00:26:40] Speaker 03:
You can't talk.

[00:26:41] Speaker 03:
No, not there.

[00:26:42] Speaker 03:
You go back to the audience.

[00:26:49] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:26:49] Speaker 03:
So the last matter, we've heard argument and that stands submitted.

[00:26:54] Speaker 03:
I now would call Fuentes Batista.

[00:26:59] Speaker 03:
versus Pamela Bondi 24-1309 and