[00:00:02] Speaker 01:
Good morning.

[00:00:04] Speaker 01:
Your honors, may it please the court.

[00:00:06] Speaker 01:
My name is Aubrey McClure Campbell, and I'm appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

[00:00:10] Speaker 01:
I would like to reserve two minutes for rebuttal.

[00:00:12] Speaker 03:
All right.

[00:00:12] Speaker 03:
Please watch your clock.

[00:00:14] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:00:16] Speaker 01:
I would like to first address the issue of the motion to sever and the failure of the BIA to remand, and then I will address the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

[00:00:23] Speaker 02:
Can I ask you a question first that has AE filed a motion to reopen based on her potential eligibility for SIJ?

[00:00:34] Speaker 02:
And if not, is there a barrier issue or hardship that would prevent AE from filing the motion to reopen?

[00:00:42] Speaker 01:
A motion to reopen hasn't been filed based on his eligibility for such status.

[00:00:48] Speaker 01:
I believe that the... Why not?

[00:00:53] Speaker 01:
The BIA, when they examined the case and declined to remand, I think treated it

[00:00:58] Speaker 01:
with a similar standard, and nothing has changed in regards to what was examined by the VA.

[00:01:04] Speaker 00:
Well, there is a different standard.

[00:01:05] Speaker 00:
To remand, you have to show that there's an immediately available visa.

[00:01:11] Speaker 00:
And for to reopen, do you have to show that?

[00:01:14] Speaker 00:
For reopening, the problem is that nothing has changed in terms of- Well, something has changed since the IJ ruled in this case the state court granted dependency.

[00:01:27] Speaker 00:
and therefore your client was approved by USCIS for SIJ status.

[00:01:35] Speaker 00:
And so all you're doing now is waiting for an immediately available visa, right?

[00:01:38] Speaker 00:
Yes, that's right.

[00:01:40] Speaker 00:
What's the date on that?

[00:01:42] Speaker 01:
He has a visa petition from June 2022, and they're currently issuing visas for January of 2022.

[00:01:51] Speaker 00:
So I guess I'm asking,

[00:01:53] Speaker 00:
a question that I want to ask the lawyer for the government too.

[00:01:57] Speaker 00:
Which is that if we just hold on to this case, I know your client can't get the visa if he's under an order of removal.

[00:02:09] Speaker 01:
Correct?

[00:02:10] Speaker 01:
But it makes the road so much harder.

[00:02:13] Speaker 00:
Well, I'm trying to figure out why we're all here, I guess, is the question.

[00:02:18] Speaker 00:
And maybe I should hold that one for your friend from the government.

[00:02:22] Speaker 00:
But it seems to me that if we were here three months later and there wasn't an immediately available visa, I would be quite unhappy if the government said, well, tough luck.

[00:02:32] Speaker 00:
You can't reopen.

[00:02:34] Speaker 00:
And so maybe they can address that when they get up.

[00:02:37] Speaker 02:
Well, I guess I'm wondering why that's an advantage.

[00:02:40] Speaker 02:
This minor is still a minor?

[00:02:44] Speaker 01:
He is actually an adult now.

[00:02:45] Speaker 01:
The case has proceeded so long that he's now an adult.

[00:02:48] Speaker 02:
Well, so is he even qualified for that then?

[00:02:51] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:02:52] Speaker 01:
Once the visa petition has been approved, however long it takes, which is a very long time, given the visa category limitations, that child remains a child under the law.

[00:03:03] Speaker 02:
So he's an adult, and I was wondering how he became a dependent, because it seems like his mother was taking care of him.

[00:03:11] Speaker 01:
That is true, but for special immigrant juvenile status, only an individual has to have been abandoned, neglected, or abused by one or both parents.

[00:03:23] Speaker 01:
He was adjudged to have been abused, abandoned, or neglected by his father.

[00:03:28] Speaker 01:
And so the mother is the one that has the full.

[00:03:30] Speaker 02:
So if he's a dependent of the court, generally when you're a dependent of the court, then the court sends you off to foster care or things along those lines.

[00:03:39] Speaker 02:
But the court sent him to his mother.

[00:03:42] Speaker 02:
So then does the mother get payment for taking care of this child as a dependent of the court?

[00:03:46] Speaker 01:
I know, Your Honor, the state court process was a little bit different.

[00:03:49] Speaker 01:
He's not a dependent of the court.

[00:03:53] Speaker 01:
The mother was deemed to be a guardian.

[00:03:55] Speaker 01:
So under California law, individuals can be placed under the care of a guardian.

[00:04:02] Speaker 01:
And that is different.

[00:04:02] Speaker 01:
And even though it's the mother, even though you're the mother, you're the guardian?

[00:04:06] Speaker 01:
Yes, even though it's the mother.

[00:04:08] Speaker 02:
Well, so what advantage to the mother if this child gets, well, this adult now gets this visa?

[00:04:16] Speaker 01:
None, Your Honor.

[00:04:17] Speaker 01:
Once the child has been declared, you know, beneficiary of the special immigrant juvenile status, there is no benefit to the mother, only that her son will have his residence.

[00:04:27] Speaker 00:
USCIS has already approved SIJ status, correct?

[00:04:29] Speaker 01:
It has, yes.

[00:04:31] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:04:31] Speaker 00:
So I'm still struggling with, all you want to do is be able to get the visa when it's available, and it's difficult to get the visa if you're under an order of removal.

[00:04:45] Speaker 00:
The IJ said, I understand that.

[00:04:47] Speaker 00:
You can always come back and move to reopen when you get to that point in time.

[00:04:52] Speaker 00:
And what you're telling me is we're very close to that point in time.

[00:04:58] Speaker 00:
And so I'm trying to figure out why it is that we need to make a legal ruling here and why it is that the two parties can't work out something.

[00:05:07] Speaker 00:
Because when we get to that point in time,

[00:05:09] Speaker 00:
If the visa is available and given to your client, you've succeeded on his behalf, right?

[00:05:17] Speaker 01:
That's right.

[00:05:17] Speaker 01:
And we have approached the government many times, including at the lower levels, to be able to come to a resolution.

[00:05:23] Speaker 01:
But we haven't.

[00:05:25] Speaker 01:
And so we are here.

[00:05:26] Speaker 00:
Yeah, and it's not in the record.

[00:05:27] Speaker 00:
So I'm just trying to figure out if this case might be suitable for mediation.

[00:05:32] Speaker 00:
But I think we asked once and the party said no.

[00:05:37] Speaker 01:
Yes, it has gone to mediation, but there wasn't an agreement to do anything other than wait for a decision.

[00:05:43] Speaker 02:
You still could get this with this pending, but you haven't filed a motion to reopen, and it's been a year.

[00:05:50] Speaker 01:
Not a motion.

[00:05:51] Speaker 01:
We have not filed a motion to reopen.

[00:05:53] Speaker 02:
But you're saying it's harder, but it's not impossible.

[00:05:56] Speaker 02:
So I don't understand why you're rolling the dice on this.

[00:06:00] Speaker 01:
It's not impossible.

[00:06:01] Speaker 01:
And in the event that if this case, the petition isn't granted, we certainly have that option.

[00:06:07] Speaker 01:
But I think it's about a larger issue, that at the immigration court level, the judge saw that the individual, much like in CJLG, had an apparent eligibility for this, and instead waffled on whether or not

[00:06:21] Speaker 01:
to sever the cases, whether or not this case should be given more time for him to proceed through the process.

[00:06:29] Speaker 00:
And I think that was- Well, I could see a judge saying, you've delayed, or you're at fault, or this is taking too long.

[00:06:36] Speaker 00:
But that's not what this judge said.

[00:06:37] Speaker 00:
This judge said, fine, we'll just go ahead and you can move to reopen later.

[00:06:42] Speaker 00:
And I guess I'd feel pretty comfortable if you were showing up in front of the same immigration judge again.

[00:06:47] Speaker 00:
that he would reopen.

[00:06:49] Speaker 00:
So I'm just trying to figure out why we're fighting here.

[00:06:53] Speaker 01:
He didn't necessarily say that a motion to reopen could be granted later.

[00:06:58] Speaker 00:
He didn't say it would be granted.

[00:06:59] Speaker 00:
He said you can always move for one later.

[00:07:00] Speaker 01:
He kind of didn't know what the procedure would be afterwards.

[00:07:04] Speaker 01:
I believe he was in the record asking the government what exactly could happen.

[00:07:08] Speaker 01:
And he seemed to be unsure.

[00:07:09] Speaker 01:
So I think that that just speaks to kind of a larger issue.

[00:07:14] Speaker 01:
The case law, the regulations really aim to protect individuals.

[00:07:19] Speaker 01:
Although this individual is not a child anymore, there are many children in a similar situation and leaving them with the removal order just because a judge won't give the individual more time, the child more time when he's apparently eligible for relief.

[00:07:33] Speaker 00:
I know you wanted to save some time, but I wanted to ask you,

[00:07:36] Speaker 00:
My understanding of the law is that you cannot apply for adjustment of status while you're under a removal order.

[00:07:44] Speaker 00:
You said it's harder.

[00:07:46] Speaker 00:
I thought it was impossible.

[00:07:49] Speaker 01:
With a removal order, he can't get adjustment status.

[00:07:52] Speaker 00:
OK.

[00:07:52] Speaker 01:
I thought you said it's harder.

[00:07:53] Speaker 01:
It is harder.

[00:07:54] Speaker 01:
The process to get finally is harder.

[00:07:56] Speaker 00:
Impossible is harder.

[00:07:57] Speaker 00:
I understand.

[00:07:57] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:07:59] Speaker 01:
OK.

[00:07:59] Speaker 01:
So thank you.

[00:08:01] Speaker 00:
Do you want to reserve the two minutes?

[00:08:03] Speaker 00:
Yes, I would.

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

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

[00:08:04] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:08:04] Speaker 00:
OK.

[00:08:04] Speaker 00:
Well, let's hear from the government council now.

[00:08:07] Speaker 03:
Ms.

[00:08:07] Speaker 03:
Groff?

[00:08:10] Speaker 03:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:08:11] Speaker 03:
It may please the Court.

[00:08:12] Speaker 03:
Stephanie Groff for the Acting Attorney General.

[00:08:15] Speaker 03:
Your Honors, I want to clarify a few things first before I get to my argument.

[00:08:20] Speaker 03:
First, my friend on the other side noted that the current visa eligibility, according to the State Department, is January 2022.

[00:08:28] Speaker 03:
I just want to point out that that is incorrect.

[00:08:31] Speaker 03:
The most recent State Department visa bulletin published for February 2025

[00:08:36] Speaker 03:
noted for the EB-4 category, the employment base, which special immigrant juvenile status is under, the current visa is February 1st, 2021.

[00:08:46] Speaker 03:
Importantly, Petitioner's minor son here's current visa date is June of 2022.

[00:08:52] Speaker 03:
There is no specific way to calculate and know when it's going to be eligible, but this is not something where we only have a few more months.

[00:08:59] Speaker 03:
It could be years, and that's why here the government has

[00:09:02] Speaker 03:
sought to ask this court to render a decision.

[00:09:05] Speaker 03:
I also want to clarify adjustment of status and how this works, because I will note it is a confusing process.

[00:09:11] Speaker 03:
However, adjustment of status is possible for the minor in this case.

[00:09:17] Speaker 03:
What happens is adjustment of status can be adjudicated either by USCIS or by an immigration judge, depending on who has jurisdiction.

[00:09:26] Speaker 03:
Notably, immigration judges do not have jurisdiction over adjustment of status for arriving non-citizens.

[00:09:32] Speaker 03:
And that's what we have here.

[00:09:34] Speaker 03:
The minor was an arriving non-citizen charged under 212A6.

[00:09:39] Speaker 03:
And because of that, USCIS actually has jurisdiction.

[00:09:43] Speaker 03:
What they were seeking below was to remand, reopen, or remand and reopen are treated similarly, but have the judge sever the cases so that there is no removal order and he could eventually apply for adjustment of status.

[00:09:56] Speaker 03:
However, even with the removal order, USCIS will be able to adjudicate his adjustment application, which will be filed when the visa is current, and that's found both in the statute.

[00:10:07] Speaker 03:
Adjustment status statute is sorry, not statute.

[00:10:10] Speaker 03:
The regulation 8 CFR 1245.2, which lists the jurisdiction of an immigration judge to adjudicate adjustment, and it's also can be found on USCIS website.

[00:10:22] Speaker 03:
Now in terms of.

[00:10:25] Speaker 00:
So stop for a second.

[00:10:27] Speaker 00:
So what you're telling us is that if his visa becomes available, USCIS can adjust his status not withstanding the removal order?

[00:10:40] Speaker 03:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:10:42] Speaker 00:
But what then happens to the removal order?

[00:10:45] Speaker 03:
So that's why it is best and best practice for the petitioner to seek reopening and to terminate the proceedings to have the removal order.

[00:10:57] Speaker 03:
But USCIS has jurisdiction throughout this.

[00:11:00] Speaker 03:
But notably here, the board didn't abuse its discretion.

[00:11:03] Speaker 03:
And as my friend on the other side said, nothing has changed.

[00:11:07] Speaker 03:
The visa date isn't eligible.

[00:11:09] Speaker 03:
There's nothing to stop this.

[00:11:11] Speaker 00:
Nothing has changed, and that's what concerns me.

[00:11:13] Speaker 00:
We have somebody who's eligible for SIJ status, who the USCIS has approved for that status, who's merely waiting for adjustment, whether or not he can get adjustment at a certain later point, I'll put aside.

[00:11:29] Speaker 00:
But he can be removed at any time.

[00:11:33] Speaker 00:
And so he has an outstanding removal order.

[00:11:37] Speaker 00:
And what we've said in previous cases is in cases like this,

[00:11:42] Speaker 00:
In the absence of some other reason, you ought to continue the removal proceedings.

[00:11:47] Speaker 00:
And I think the motion to sever here is really a motion to continue.

[00:11:52] Speaker 00:
Let the mother's proceedings go on, but put mine aside for a moment.

[00:11:56] Speaker 00:
And so what we have is somebody who is eligible, been approved for this status, who's merely waiting for the visa, but he's under an extant removal order.

[00:12:08] Speaker 00:
And what the IJ said is, come back to me once you get the visa.

[00:12:12] Speaker 00:
And I can deal with the removal order.

[00:12:15] Speaker 00:
And so what we have here is this sort of vicious circle.

[00:12:17] Speaker 00:
For all I know, tomorrow the guys in the armored vehicle will pull up to his place and take him away to Mexico.

[00:12:26] Speaker 00:
And that's not what anybody intended in this process.

[00:12:30] Speaker 03:
So, Your Honor, and we acknowledge that, but notably, the minor has deferred action, so that is USCIS's, in other ways, their prosecutorial discretion.

[00:12:42] Speaker 03:
When they granted his I-130, or I-360, they specifically said that you will have deferred action, meaning that no action will be taken, and you will, your removal.

[00:12:53] Speaker 00:
Tell me where I can find that in the record.

[00:12:56] Speaker 03:
Yes, Your Honor, so specifically they filed the I-797 on AR 14.

[00:13:04] Speaker 03:
That is that from USCIS saying you have been your approved eligible when your visa date until it becomes current in it says grant a deferred action.

[00:13:15] Speaker 03:
It says you will be.

[00:13:16] Speaker 03:
It's been approved on June or sorry February 24th, 2023 and is currently

[00:13:22] Speaker 03:
current for four years.

[00:13:24] Speaker 03:
And I do believe he would be able to renew that now.

[00:13:28] Speaker 00:
So he has deferred when the term deferred action means you won't be removed.

[00:13:33] Speaker 03:
That's USCIS's form of prosecutorial discretion.

[00:13:36] Speaker 03:
Now, I will note that there has been a change of administration.

[00:13:39] Speaker 00:
Yes, we all noticed.

[00:13:41] Speaker 03:
The government acknowledges that, but as of now, we have nothing and opposing counsel have pointed to nothing that this deferred action is being taken away, that anyone sees him as a priority.

[00:13:51] Speaker 03:
I will note he is 20 now.

[00:13:53] Speaker 03:
And even if he were to become over 21, he's still eligible for justice status.

[00:13:59] Speaker 03:
And the government does acknowledge that if he were removed, then he would no longer be eligible for special immigrant juvenile status.

[00:14:05] Speaker 03:
But what's important here is that his mother gets no form of relief from this.

[00:14:10] Speaker 03:
That's specifically in the statute.

[00:14:13] Speaker 00:
I don't know if we all agree.

[00:14:15] Speaker 00:
I agree.

[00:14:16] Speaker 00:
We're only talking about AE at this point.

[00:14:18] Speaker 00:
We're not talking about whether his mother gets relief.

[00:14:21] Speaker 03:
But the government would ask that you adjudicate this petition because it doesn't change the fact that he has deferred action, he is still eligible, and hopefully less than a year, hopefully a year or so, he would be eligible to apply for adjustment and move to reopen.

[00:14:37] Speaker 03:
And notably, while my friend on the other side did not get to her unexhausted ineffective assistance, a council claim,

[00:14:43] Speaker 03:
That's the more appropriate avenue is filing a motion to reopen with the board for ineffective assistance to counsel order reopen and terminate and sever.

[00:14:50] Speaker 03:
But that's we don't have that here.

[00:14:51] Speaker 03:
All we have is the one page in their brief before the board on AR 13 asking for remand to sever just based on the court.

[00:15:00] Speaker 03:
The state courts predicate order.

[00:15:01] Speaker 00:
You know, I'd feel a lot more comfortable if the government were representing to me that he won't be removed pending the adjudication of his adjustment of status.

[00:15:13] Speaker 00:
If that's the case, then it seems to me we probably aren't arguing about very much here.

[00:15:18] Speaker 00:
If you want to hold open that possibility, then it seems to me he's entitled to try to argue for some form of relief that might prevent that.

[00:15:28] Speaker 03:
Well, Your Honor, I would point you to the Supreme Court's decision in Texas versus the United States, which was about the ISIS ability for prosecutorial discretion, and noted that it's not up to the courts of appeals to get behind the question and be concerned with this.

[00:15:44] Speaker 03:
Yes?

[00:15:45] Speaker 00:
No, I'm not worried about it.

[00:15:46] Speaker 00:
Prosecutorial discretion is all yours.

[00:15:48] Speaker 00:
You're the person who exercises it.

[00:15:50] Speaker 00:
You're the government.

[00:15:51] Speaker 00:
I'm trying to figure out.

[00:15:53] Speaker 00:
whether or not, if I think he's made out a good case for relief here, whether or not we really need to act because we're really not affecting anything.

[00:16:02] Speaker 00:
And if the parties got together and said, don't worry, we've stipulated he won't be removed pending the adjudication of his adjustment of status application,

[00:16:15] Speaker 00:
I would feel inclined for the judiciary not to step in.

[00:16:20] Speaker 00:
If he does face removal in the meantime, then it seems to me I've got to determine whether the I.J.

[00:16:26] Speaker 00:
abused his discretion.

[00:16:27] Speaker 00:
in denying the motion to sever.

[00:16:29] Speaker 00:
So that's why I'm asking the question.

[00:16:31] Speaker 00:
I'm not trying to get you to decide one way or the other, but it does seem to me your position is we have no interest in removing him.

[00:16:38] Speaker 00:
So that's why I keep wondering why we can't get the parties together here.

[00:16:42] Speaker 03:
Of course, and let me just clarify, there's no interest in removing him right now.

[00:16:46] Speaker 03:
However, he is an adult and there are certain bars for just minestatus.

[00:16:51] Speaker 03:
This is all very speculative.

[00:16:52] Speaker 03:
It could be tomorrow that he commits a crime.

[00:16:54] Speaker 03:
He's no longer eligible.

[00:16:56] Speaker 03:
Promising that he will not be removed is not something that the government can do.

[00:17:01] Speaker 03:
I will just note that this case has been in mediation before, before briefing.

[00:17:06] Speaker 03:
I believe that my friend on the other side has been in constant communication with the Department of Homeland Security to agree to reopen and remand in Sever, although DHS has declined.

[00:17:16] Speaker 03:
And we were only recently approached about a few weeks ago about judicial administrative closure, but based on our reading of SARCAR,

[00:17:23] Speaker 03:
We believe that this case, this this court should go forward and rendering a decision.

[00:17:28] Speaker 03:
Why?

[00:17:29] Speaker 03:
Because he will still be eligible at the moment for adjustment when his visa becomes eligible, despite if this court were to deny the petition for review, which we think is eligible, not Miss Cordoba waived.

[00:17:42] Speaker 03:
all challenges to the immigration judges and the board's applicant denial of her request for asylum withholding and cat.

[00:17:50] Speaker 03:
Instead, she's only raised arguments that are unexhausted, and here we do not believe that the board did not abuse its discretion.

[00:17:58] Speaker 03:
And importantly, Miss Cordova never challenged the immigration judges denial of severing the case.

[00:18:04] Speaker 03:
While she noted before you that the immigration judge didn't know what was happening, it is clear that they were applying for

[00:18:11] Speaker 03:
CG, if I may just briefly finish my sentence, CGLG is not applicable here.

[00:18:17] Speaker 03:
They had their rights.

[00:18:19] Speaker 03:
The immigration judge determined, your visa is not current.

[00:18:21] Speaker 03:
I'm going to move forward.

[00:18:22] Speaker 03:
And the board did not abuse its discretion.

[00:18:25] Speaker 00:
Can I ask just one other question?

[00:18:26] Speaker 00:
Yeah, go ahead.

[00:18:27] Speaker 00:
I understand.

[00:18:28] Speaker 00:
And I think you're right in saying the mother, Ms.

[00:18:31] Speaker 00:
Godoba, has waived various claims.

[00:18:35] Speaker 00:
But AE had his own claim for severance, right?

[00:18:41] Speaker 03:
It was not a, it wasn't a motion on the record.

[00:18:44] Speaker 03:
It stated the immigration judge stated, do you want to sever?

[00:18:47] Speaker 03:
You're going to apply for this.

[00:18:49] Speaker 03:
I'm going to go forward with this.

[00:18:50] Speaker 00:
I'm not sure.

[00:18:53] Speaker 00:
Are you arguing that she waived his right to attack on before us the denial of the motion to sever?

[00:19:00] Speaker 03:
Yes, because she at no point in their brief to the board did they challenge this denial of the severance.

[00:19:06] Speaker 03:
Rather, it was just a motion to remand asking to send it back because now something has changed.

[00:19:12] Speaker 00:
But you're not arguing it's because she waived his rights.

[00:19:16] Speaker 00:
You're arguing that his brief to the board didn't raise this issue.

[00:19:19] Speaker 00:
Correct.

[00:19:19] Speaker 00:
You're right.

[00:19:20] Speaker 00:
OK.

[00:19:20] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:19:22] Speaker 03:
All right.

[00:19:22] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:19:22] Speaker 03:
Thank you so much.

[00:19:24] Speaker 03:
Council.

[00:19:28] Speaker 01:
Ms.

[00:19:28] Speaker 01:
Campbell?

[00:19:30] Speaker 01:
Yes, Renner.

[00:19:32] Speaker 01:
After all this discussion of deferred action and the concerns that the court appears to have with deferred action and its ability to protect an individual, I would just point to the definition on USCIS' own website of what deferred action is.

[00:19:46] Speaker 01:
It's a temporary favorable exercise of prosecutorial discretion that gives some cases lower priority for immigration enforcement action.

[00:19:56] Speaker 01:
So this isn't some stop completely to enforcement action.

[00:20:01] Speaker 01:
This doesn't prevent this individual from being removed, even if there is a promise of deferred action.

[00:20:08] Speaker 01:
He's just lower priority.

[00:20:09] Speaker 00:
Let me ask you to address the issue that your friend from the government just raised.

[00:20:15] Speaker 00:
The motion to sever by whoever it was brought by was denied by the immigration judge, correct?

[00:20:21] Speaker 01:
That is right.

[00:20:22] Speaker 00:
When you went to the BIA, did you argue that was error?

[00:20:27] Speaker 01:
We did not represent the petitions at either level, at the immigration court level or at the BIA.

[00:20:35] Speaker 00:
I understand.

[00:20:36] Speaker 00:
Your clients, not you.

[00:20:38] Speaker 01:
Yes, my clients.

[00:20:39] Speaker 00:
Did your clients argue that the denial of the motion of sever was error, or did they merely argue that the BIA should remand?

[00:20:47] Speaker 01:
They argued that the BIA should remand the case.

[00:20:50] Speaker 01:
And I believe that this—oh, excuse me.

[00:20:52] Speaker 00:
And the BIA said, I think quite accurately, we can't remand unless there's an immediately available visa, because he's not eligible for the form of relief until then.

[00:21:03] Speaker 00:
So is the government right that you waived any attack on the denial of Motion to Sever?

[00:21:11] Speaker 01:
I don't agree that that's the case.

[00:21:14] Speaker 01:
I think that the subtext of the motion to remand, the motion to remand section only references the minor respondent at the BIA.

[00:21:23] Speaker 01:
It doesn't reference the mother's case.

[00:21:25] Speaker 01:
This wasn't a request to remand the mother's case in that section.

[00:21:29] Speaker 01:
It was only in reference to the child.

[00:21:31] Speaker 01:
And so I would argue that the motion to remand

[00:21:34] Speaker 02:
Is addressing that motion to separate but we have to write those words into it because no one ever mentioned them.

[00:21:41] Speaker 01:
Yes, unfortunately that wasn't as Delineated as I would have hoped it would be but I do believe that that is the the text the subtext of that motion to remand Thank you your honors Thank you counsel Cordoba v. McHenry