[00:00:08] Speaker 03:
Good morning.

[00:00:10] Speaker 03:
We have three, four cases on calendar that are being submitted on the briefs.

[00:00:18] Speaker 03:
Those are 23-1162, Felipe Gonzalez Gonzalez versus Pamela Bondi, 23-2258, Miguel Sagado Gonzalez versus Pamela Bondi, 24-5650, Kenneth Paul Hoggis versus Frank

[00:00:38] Speaker 03:
Bisignano and then 25-872 Melanie Beauchamp versus Mary Kate Flaherty in accordance with the respective orders previously entered on the dockets of those four cases.

[00:00:53] Speaker 03:
Those four cases are hereby submitted on the briefs.

[00:00:57] Speaker 03:
So we will proceed with argument in the first case on calendar for argument this morning which is 24-1092

[00:01:07] Speaker 03:
Juan Antonio Perez-Garcia versus Pamela Bondi, and we'll hear first from Mr. Stender.

[00:01:18] Speaker 04:
Good morning.

[00:01:18] Speaker 04:
May it please the court, Chris Stender on behalf of Juan Antonio Perez-Garcia, I'd like to reserve one minute of my time for rebuttal.

[00:01:26] Speaker 04:
Patel v. Garland does not limit this court from taking notice of evidence that is established in the administrative record.

[00:01:32] Speaker 04:
This court has jurisdiction over the case for five reasons.

[00:01:36] Speaker 04:
One, because the proper standard of review is deniable for legal issues.

[00:01:41] Speaker 04:
Supreme Court precedent favors it.

[00:01:43] Speaker 04:
Three, due process requires it.

[00:01:46] Speaker 04:
Four, judicial and administrative notice permits it.

[00:01:49] Speaker 04:
And five, voluntary departure can be reviewed by this court if legal issues are presented.

[00:01:54] Speaker 03:
What makes it a legal issue here?

[00:01:57] Speaker 03:
Because it looks like an egregious factual error.

[00:02:01] Speaker 03:
The BIA made a statement which we all know is directly contradicted by the only pertinent evidence in the record.

[00:02:09] Speaker 03:
But that seems like a factual error.

[00:02:12] Speaker 04:
Well, the legal requirements in order to be eligible for voluntary departure by statute and regulation require the payment of a voluntary departure bond.

[00:02:21] Speaker 04:
So that is a legal requirement in order to be eligible.

[00:02:24] Speaker 04:
The judge ordered it, and it was paid.

[00:02:26] Speaker 04:
So while there's a factual issue of whether or not the bond was paid, that is an element in order to be eligible legally.

[00:02:33] Speaker 03:
But the BIA correctly understood what the standard was, and it applied it to the facts.

[00:02:41] Speaker 03:
It just got the facts wrong.

[00:02:43] Speaker 00:
Right, and.

[00:02:52] Speaker 00:
there is a difference between the facts and Patel that talk about the agency reviewing conflicting evidence on both sides and ultimately making a determination.

[00:03:04] Speaker 00:
Here, it really is just a mistake or an error.

[00:03:09] Speaker 00:
I don't read what the BIA did to have been a factual determination.

[00:03:14] Speaker 04:
That's our argument.

[00:03:16] Speaker 04:
We would agree with that.

[00:03:17] Speaker 04:
I don't think you can read Patel v. Garland and say that the court

[00:03:22] Speaker 04:
should ignore evidence.

[00:03:26] Speaker 04:
It's in the record.

[00:03:27] Speaker 04:
It's in the administrative record.

[00:03:28] Speaker 04:
The statute itself requires this court to make its determination of eligibility based on the administrative record.

[00:03:35] Speaker 00:
So let me ask you this, and I'm going to ask your friend on the other side the same question.

[00:03:39] Speaker 00:
If the legal requirement is that a bond be paid and that IJ clearly required

[00:03:45] Speaker 00:
that petitioner paid the $500 bond within this period of time in order to be eligible for voluntary departure, but then the BIA denied relief based on the failure to timely submit proof.

[00:04:01] Speaker 00:
What do we do with the fact that the BIA sort of changes

[00:04:05] Speaker 00:
You know, putting aside for a moment that it's factually a mistake, whether or not the bond was paid timely, there's this sort of layer of additional requirement that the BIA imposes, which is that there needs to be a timely submission of proof of the payment of bond when the legal requirement, I think as you noted, is simply to pay the bond.

[00:04:29] Speaker 04:
Well, there is a regulation that talks about that in HCFR 1240.26C3R3.

[00:04:37] Speaker 04:
Can you say that again, please?

[00:04:38] Speaker 04:
Yes, I'm sorry if that's too fast or lengthy.

[00:04:40] Speaker 04:
HCFR 1240.26C3R2, I'm sorry, that says, I'll quote it,

[00:04:51] Speaker 04:
An alien who has been granted voluntary departure shall, within 30 days of filing an appeal with the board, submit sufficient proof of having posted the required voluntary departure bond.

[00:05:02] Speaker 04:
So it is a requirement, at least a regulatory, I think it's also a statutory requirement because obviously the statute

[00:05:08] Speaker 02:
Is Flores Molina, which also was decided in 2022, which indicates, quote, where the BIA does not consider all of the evidence before it, either by misstating the record or failing to mention highly probative or potentially dispositive evidence in its decision is legal, is legal error and cannot stand.

[00:05:32] Speaker 02:
Isn't that a better case for you?

[00:05:36] Speaker 02:
in characterizing this as a legal error?

[00:05:40] Speaker 04:
Could you repeat the question?

[00:05:42] Speaker 04:
Sure.

[00:05:43] Speaker 02:
Flores Molina, which is 37F4626 at 632 states, misstating the record or failing to mention highly probative or potentially dispositive evidence in its decision is legal error and cannot stand.

[00:06:04] Speaker 02:
Are you arguing that that's the case here, that this was in fact legal error, and that that case supports your position?

[00:06:11] Speaker 04:
That's exactly what I'm arguing.

[00:06:12] Speaker 04:
Yes, that's true.

[00:06:14] Speaker 04:
And I think Judge Corman's concurrence in that case speaks about it at 640 and 641.

[00:06:20] Speaker 04:
And he cites to Guerrero-Laspría that says if you have settled facts and you're going to the law, then it's a de novo review and it's something the court can get to.

[00:06:31] Speaker 03:
But what's the line between

[00:06:34] Speaker 03:
failing to consider or to accurately describe the evidence and a factual mistake that's unreviewable under Patel.

[00:06:44] Speaker 03:
Because one of the points that Justice Gorsuch made for justices in dissent in Patel was that there was an egregious factual error.

[00:06:52] Speaker 03:
And that was that the agency had thought that in making a credibility determination about Patel in that case,

[00:07:02] Speaker 03:
that he had an incentive to lie on the driver's license form.

[00:07:06] Speaker 03:
In fact, that was admittedly false because he was eligible for it regardless of whether he checked the citizenship box.

[00:07:14] Speaker 03:
And so, Justice Gorsuch said there's an egregious factual mistake, clear misrepresentation of the record and the decision, and yet the majority said it is not reviewable.

[00:07:24] Speaker 03:
So what is the line between an erroneous

[00:07:28] Speaker 03:
clearly erroneous factual determination, review of which is barred by Patel, and a legal error of failing to consider or accurately characterize the record.

[00:07:40] Speaker 04:
Well, I think in Patel you have testimony, you have weighing of evidence, you have truthfulness, you have issues there that the court has to kind of get into the weeds and weigh in what kind of evidence it is.

[00:07:49] Speaker 04:
And here I think you have a bright line.

[00:07:51] Speaker 04:
because you have proof in the administrative record which this court through statute is required to consider in making its decision.

[00:07:58] Speaker 04:
So one way you could distinguish it is that you have evidence in the record that nobody's really, the government itself agrees it's in the record and recommends that this case be remanded for that.

[00:08:09] Speaker 04:
So nobody's arguing that that factual issue is not in the record and the proof is not in the record.

[00:08:15] Speaker 04:
George Gorsuch, one of my favorite justices in the Supreme Court, in his footnote number three, points to Supreme Court precedent from 1987.

[00:08:24] Speaker 04:
And he says in Colorado National Bank versus Commissioner, states that, it's set a law that findings of fact made by an agency will not be disturbed on review if it is supported by substantial evidence.

[00:08:37] Speaker 04:
But whether there is substantial evidence to support a finding is a question of law.

[00:08:42] Speaker 03:
But that's a proposition if taken

[00:08:46] Speaker 03:
to its logical conclusion as the dissent urge would overrule Patel on its facts because the substantial evidence test is whether or not any reasonable fact finder would be compelled to reach the conclusion.

[00:09:01] Speaker 03:
That's the factual, the review of fact finding that is barred by Patel.

[00:09:07] Speaker 03:
So Patel bars the application of that substantial evidence standard

[00:09:11] Speaker 03:
in reviewing factual issues.

[00:09:13] Speaker 03:
So it can't be that every substantial evidence determination is a legal question because then Patel has, there's nothing left of Patel.

[00:09:21] Speaker 03:
So that's what I'm struggling with.

[00:09:23] Speaker 03:
I understand the clarity of this situation, but where is the line?

[00:09:26] Speaker 03:
Because we have to draw a line, if you want to prevail, we have to draw a line that leaves something left of Patel, we can't overrule Supreme Court decisions, but that nonetheless puts your case on the other side and I'm looking

[00:09:40] Speaker 03:
for your argument as to how that line should be drawn.

[00:09:44] Speaker 04:
No, I agree.

[00:09:45] Speaker 04:
And I think I spoke, I hate to use the term, but I understand the slippery slope and I did struggle with this in coming up with the argument.

[00:09:52] Speaker 04:
I think I would try to lay down a marker in that you have evidence in the record and you can't ignore it.

[00:09:57] Speaker 04:
The statute requires you to consider the evidence in the record.

[00:10:01] Speaker 00:
Is there anything to be made here of the fact that there wasn't any consideration of conflicting evidence?

[00:10:09] Speaker 00:
It seems to me that in Patel, whether or not it was a grave factual mistake or error, there was arguments on both sides in terms of the conflict of evidence that the court ultimately weighed.

[00:10:24] Speaker 00:
And here, that wasn't the case.

[00:10:27] Speaker 00:
There was.

[00:10:27] Speaker 00:
And as you noted, the government concedes that the evidence was in fact in the proof of the payment of bond and the actual payment of bond are undisputed.

[00:10:38] Speaker 00:
So is that perhaps where the distinction may lie?

[00:10:43] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:10:44] Speaker 04:
I think it's a good place that it could lie there.

[00:10:47] Speaker 04:
I think what's kind of interesting about this case is the payment of the bond is something that happens outside of court.

[00:10:52] Speaker 04:
The judge doesn't confirm it.

[00:10:55] Speaker 04:
It gets paid.

[00:10:56] Speaker 04:
And then it gets filed along with the notice of appeal.

[00:10:58] Speaker 04:
It is a regulatory and statutory requirement that kind of something that takes place outside the court that a judge

[00:11:07] Speaker 04:
there are no arguments made whether or not it's done, right?

[00:11:09] Speaker 04:
It's either you did it or you didn't do it.

[00:11:11] Speaker 04:
It's kind of a cut and dry issue.

[00:11:13] Speaker 04:
It was done here.

[00:11:14] Speaker 04:
It's in the record.

[00:11:16] Speaker 04:
And I don't think you can read Patel to say that the court should ignore evidence that all the parties agree is in the record.

[00:11:22] Speaker 04:
There's no dispute on it.

[00:11:23] Speaker 04:
There was, I think, a dispute in Patel.

[00:11:25] Speaker 04:
There's not a dispute here.

[00:11:27] Speaker 04:
It's in the record, and it's unequivocal.

[00:11:30] Speaker 04:
And I think for that reason, this case should be remanded to the BIA, at least for the application of volunteer departure.

[00:11:37] Speaker 04:
which was denied.

[00:11:38] Speaker 03:
We've taken you over your time without questions, so I'll give you the one minute you requested for rebuttal.

[00:11:43] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:11:44] Speaker 03:
All right, we'll hear now from Ms.

[00:11:47] Speaker 03:
Pham.

[00:11:59] Speaker 01:
May it please the Court, Nancy Pham for the Attorney General.

[00:12:03] Speaker 01:
Your Honors, the Court should deny the petition for review in full.

[00:12:07] Speaker 01:
First, substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that petitioner failed to establish exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his qualifying relative.

[00:12:19] Speaker 01:
And turning to what this court is most interested in, the second issue, this court lacks jurisdiction to review the agency's discretionary grant or denial of voluntary departure.

[00:12:29] Speaker 00:
Did you make that argument, counsel?

[00:12:33] Speaker 01:
Your Honor, in response to the court's August 28th order, the government has reconsidered its position from briefing in light of Patel.

[00:12:43] Speaker 00:
I mean, this court either has jurisdiction or doesn't have jurisdiction.

[00:12:47] Speaker 00:
It is an issue that we need to decide regardless.

[00:12:51] Speaker 00:
But I find it a little troubling that the government is making an argument now that is a complete 180 from what it said in its paper.

[00:12:58] Speaker 02:
So you can't say that it was in regards to Patel.

[00:13:00] Speaker 02:
Patel was decided in 2022, correct?

[00:13:04] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:13:05] Speaker 02:
Okay, so suddenly you just realized that Patel was an issue and three years later?

[00:13:11] Speaker 01:
Your Honor, I think in this case Respondent is sort of struggling and grappling with the same issue that the courts have been discussing, which is that the record seems to indicate that Petitioner did

[00:13:24] Speaker 01:
file timely proof of his bond payment.

[00:13:27] Speaker 01:
And that seems to be a factual overlooking of a fact in the record.

[00:13:31] Speaker 01:
At the same time, we have the precedent in Patel, which clearly states that federal courts lack jurisdiction.

[00:13:40] Speaker 03:
Let me ask you a hypothetical.

[00:13:42] Speaker 03:
Suppose that there's an entire category of evidence in the record, and it's clear from the BIA and the IJ's decision that

[00:13:54] Speaker 03:
They declined to consider the evidence at all.

[00:13:59] Speaker 03:
Is that a legal question?

[00:14:04] Speaker 01:
Your Honor, I think that it would turn on what the relief or basis is at play in the case.

[00:14:11] Speaker 03:
Oh, I suppose that it's otherwise within a determination that's on the statutory list at issue in Patel.

[00:14:21] Speaker 03:
a factual issue or legal question that the entire category evidence was declined to be considered by the agency in making the factual determination.

[00:14:30] Speaker 03:
Would that be a legal issue?

[00:14:33] Speaker 01:
Your Honor, I think that is probably heading towards, more towards the legal issue lane.

[00:14:39] Speaker 01:
But even still with that line of question, Your Honor, Wilkinson v. Garland discusses basically when there's application of facts to

[00:14:52] Speaker 01:
a legal standard.

[00:14:53] Speaker 00:
What if there's just a complete conscious disregard?

[00:14:56] Speaker 00:
So what's to stop an agency in the next case from just consciously disregarding, ignoring facts that are undisputed in the record, or perhaps, as your friend on the other side said, a fact that they don't even have to make a determination about because it's a zero-sum thing.

[00:15:15] Speaker 00:
You either did it or you didn't do it.

[00:15:18] Speaker 00:
What's to stop an agency from just disregarding that because

[00:15:21] Speaker 00:
the law, I think, as you're arguing now, is that that always will deprive us of jurisdiction because it's a factual determination.

[00:15:32] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:15:32] Speaker 01:
What's preventing the courts from doing that is just, you know, their duty to carefully review the evidence and for the duty... Did that happen here?

[00:15:41] Speaker 01:
I can't speak to what the Board did or did not do here.

[00:15:47] Speaker 00:
Well, you agree that there was, in fact, a bond that was paid, correct?

[00:15:51] Speaker 01:
Yes, your honor.

[00:15:51] Speaker 00:
And you also agree that there was timely proof of the bond, correct?

[00:15:56] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:15:57] Speaker 00:
So was there a careful review of the record to determine whether or not a bond was timely paid and proof was made?

[00:16:04] Speaker 01:
Your honor, I can't speak to what the board did here.

[00:16:06] Speaker 03:
It does look... You have to speak to what the board did here.

[00:16:10] Speaker 03:
You're defending its decision.

[00:16:11] Speaker 03:
That's your job.

[00:16:12] Speaker 03:
So tell us how we put this into the legal framework.

[00:16:16] Speaker 03:
You can't say,

[00:16:17] Speaker 03:
You don't have to decide it.

[00:16:19] Speaker 03:
We have to decide this case and we're looking for your assistance.

[00:16:23] Speaker 01:
Yes, your honor.

[00:16:24] Speaker 02:
The board does appear to have overlooked this piece of evidence and it's why doesn't that squarely fit in with what we said in Flores Molina when it does overlook it and

[00:16:35] Speaker 02:
Flores Molina was decided in June 22, Patel was decided in May 22.

[00:16:39] Speaker 02:
So it was a month later, they clearly know what the Supreme Court has said in Patel.

[00:16:44] Speaker 02:
And they there said, when you forget to review certain information, that's a legal error.

[00:16:52] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:16:53] Speaker 01:
Flores Molina was decided after Patel.

[00:16:55] Speaker 01:
But if you look at the case itself, it does not mention Patel at all, nor grapple with Patel's holding.

[00:17:01] Speaker 01:
And I understand that that might be an uncomfortable position in this case, but Patel clearly holds that there's no jurisdiction to review facts found as part of discretionary relief under 1254A2 Bravo.

[00:17:15] Speaker 01:
And what was going on in Florida?

[00:17:18] Speaker 03:
But a factual finding can have predicate legal issues that underlie it.

[00:17:24] Speaker 03:
And so the example I started with was you

[00:17:28] Speaker 03:
decline to consider a category of evidence.

[00:17:30] Speaker 03:
So you have an evidentiary ruling, and I say, I won't look at this type of evidence.

[00:17:34] Speaker 03:
That evidentiary ruling can be reviewed as a legal error, and a factual finding that rests on that could topple as a result, correct?

[00:17:45] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor, potentially, yes.

[00:17:46] Speaker 03:
And so here, why shouldn't we read this record as follows?

[00:17:51] Speaker 03:
That the agency has told us that it failed to consider

[00:17:57] Speaker 03:
all of the evidence in the record, because it's impossible for it to have said what it said if it had done so.

[00:18:05] Speaker 03:
And therefore, it categorically failed to consider some of the evidence in the record, so it wasn't making a judgment in the sense that Patel discusses, but was making the legal error of failing to consider all of the evidence in the record.

[00:18:22] Speaker 03:
And therefore, it's a legal question.

[00:18:23] Speaker 03:
Why is that analysis wrong?

[00:18:25] Speaker 01:
Your honor, because this is a purely factual question.

[00:18:29] Speaker 01:
There's no legal analysis.

[00:18:30] Speaker 01:
I believe my friends called it a bright line, a cut and dry issue.

[00:18:35] Speaker 01:
The petitioner either pay the bond timely and gave proof of that, or he did not.

[00:18:40] Speaker 01:
And in Patel, as your honor mentioned earlier,

[00:18:43] Speaker 01:
in the dissent, the dissent certainly acknowledges.

[00:18:46] Speaker 03:
Suppose the BIA decision said we didn't look at that document that said AR 35 and 36 or whatever the page number is.

[00:18:54] Speaker 03:
Suppose they said that indecision, we did not look at it and here's our factual finding.

[00:18:58] Speaker 03:
Can we review that?

[00:19:01] Speaker 03:
Is that a legal error in failing to look at that document?

[00:19:08] Speaker 01:
I would still say that that's a factual determination.

[00:19:11] Speaker 03:
How is that factual?

[00:19:12] Speaker 03:
How is that different from excluding evidence under an evidentiary rule?

[00:19:21] Speaker 01:
It's different, Your Honor, because basically Patel acknowledges this and says that

[00:19:29] Speaker 01:
You know, the factual findings, as uncomfortable as it may be, they are unrevealable.

[00:19:35] Speaker 00:
The factual determination in Patel was a credibility determination.

[00:19:39] Speaker 00:
They were weighing conflicting evidence to make a determination.

[00:19:46] Speaker 00:
You acknowledge that the facts in Patel are different than the facts here, correct?

[00:19:49] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor, but what the decision in Patel turns on is whether the petitioner

[00:19:56] Speaker 01:
whether the driver's license required him to have citizenship, and that's what that credibility determination really came down to.

[00:20:05] Speaker 00:
No, I mean, that might have been part of it, but there was a determination made about whether or not he had inadvertently or mistakenly checked the box or intentionally checked the box, correct?

[00:20:17] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:20:21] Speaker 03:
But there's a difference between looking at all the evidence.

[00:20:25] Speaker 03:
Here's my question.

[00:20:27] Speaker 03:
Explain to me why there's a difference between looking all the evidence and then screwing it up, which is what happened, arguably, in Patel, and not looking at all the evidence.

[00:20:41] Speaker 01:
Your Honor, I think the weighing of evidence and sort of screwing it up, as you put it, is more along the lines of legal error.

[00:20:49] Speaker 03:
But to weigh the evidence, it has to be put in the scale.

[00:20:53] Speaker 03:
What the BIA has told us here is that they didn't put this in the scale.

[00:20:58] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:20:59] Speaker 01:
May I, if I may, I see that I only have a minute left.

[00:21:03] Speaker 01:
There are two points that are in our brief that I would really like to make about Flores-Molina.

[00:21:07] Speaker 01:
Flores-Molina is distinguishable from what we have here because the relief at play there, humanitarian asylum, is not enumerated in 1252 A to B. So it is under Patel out of what would be unrevealable.

[00:21:28] Speaker 01:
So that's the first point, Your Honors.

[00:21:30] Speaker 01:
And the second is that in Flores-Molina and this case that they cite Cole, what's going on there is the underlying CAT relief.

[00:21:38] Speaker 01:
And CAT relief itself is not discretionary relief by statute.

[00:21:42] Speaker 01:
And in addition to that, the court in Cole specifically mentions that the regulations implementing CAT explicitly require the IJ to consider

[00:21:55] Speaker 01:
all evidence relevant to the possibility of future torture.

[00:21:59] Speaker 01:
So the underpinning of Kat in those cases in Cole and Flores-Molina, that is what is driving the decision and the ruling of legal error there.

[00:22:08] Speaker 01:
And here we have a factual, admittedly, the record appears to show a factual error.

[00:22:15] Speaker 01:
And as uncomfortable as that may be under Patel, this court has no jurisdiction to review that factual finding.

[00:22:21] Speaker 01:
And under Riley V. Bondy and Figueroa Ochoa, this court must be assured of its jurisdiction, you know, at the start.

[00:22:31] Speaker 01:
And if there are no further questions, Your Honor.

[00:22:33] Speaker 03:
All right.

[00:22:34] Speaker 03:
Thank you, counsel.

[00:22:35] Speaker 03:
So we'll hear rebuttal now.

[00:22:39] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:22:40] Speaker 04:
And just briefly, I would disagree with government counsel that this was a discretionary determination.

[00:22:47] Speaker 04:
Obviously, the BIA did not apply any discretion.

[00:22:50] Speaker 03:
I think her point was only that Patel only applies to the enumerated provisions, all of which involve ultimately discretionary judgments, but have eligibility components.

[00:23:02] Speaker 03:
I agree with that.

[00:23:04] Speaker 03:
the other item at issue in Flores-Molina were not on that list.

[00:23:09] Speaker 03:
And so that was her point.

[00:23:11] Speaker 04:
I see.

[00:23:11] Speaker 04:
But I just, OK, if that was not a distinction that needed to be made, then that's fine.

[00:23:15] Speaker 04:
And I think that what's troubling, and I think to the court and government counsel struggling with this, I don't think you can read Patel to say that the court has to be blind to matters that are established in the record.

[00:23:28] Speaker 04:
It can't stand for that.

[00:23:30] Speaker 04:
Perhaps this is the rule of unintended consequences.

[00:23:32] Speaker 03:
But the problem is that if we had factual error review of the sort that Patel bars, if we had it, the only time we can reverse a factual conclusion is when any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.

[00:23:53] Speaker 03:
only can reverse a factual finding if it is an obvious factual error.

[00:23:58] Speaker 03:
And so we can't be the rule that every obvious factual error is a legal error, it gets out of Patel because then Patel is a shell, it's gone and we can't do that.

[00:24:07] Speaker 03:
So there has to be a line between the obvious factual errors that Patel allows to stand and what you're advocating here if you want

[00:24:19] Speaker 03:
escape Patel.

[00:24:20] Speaker 04:
And there is statutory support that the court has to make its decision based on the administrative record.

[00:24:28] Speaker 04:
And this is in the administrative record.

[00:24:30] Speaker 04:
So it's not just a Patel situation, I think.

[00:24:37] Speaker 04:
There is in the statute a requirement that the court consider the evidence in the record.

[00:24:41] Speaker 04:
I think the court can hang its head on different issues, but I understand

[00:24:45] Speaker 04:
If you want to draw a bright line, and that's what we've been discussing here at length, this is a difficult situation.

[00:24:51] Speaker 04:
But again, I just fall back.

[00:24:53] Speaker 03:
So the line you would draw is between weighing the evidence of the scale and placing the evidence on the scale?

[00:24:59] Speaker 04:
Well said.

[00:25:00] Speaker 04:
And with that, if there's no further questions, I'll finish.

[00:25:04] Speaker 03:
OK.

[00:25:04] Speaker 03:
All right.

[00:25:05] Speaker 03:
Thank you, counsel.

[00:25:06] Speaker 03:
Thank you very much.

[00:25:07] Speaker 03:
Case just argued will be submitted.