Chisel is one of the most important tools of the sheet metal, fitting and forging shop. It is widely used for cutting and chipping the work piece. It is made of high carbon steel or tool steel. It is in the form of a rod having cutting edge at one end, hexagonal or octagonal body and striking head at the other end. The size of a chisel is described by its length and width of edge. When the cutting edge becomes blunt, it is again sharpened by grinding. For cutting the job or work piece with the chisel, it is placed vertically on the job or work piece and hammering is carried out upon its head. But for chipping, the chisel is inclined at 40°-70° with the job orwork piece. The angle of the cutting edge of the chisel is 35°-70°according to the metals to be cut. Source A Textbook of Basic Manufacturing Processes and Workshop Technology by Rajender Singh.
Chisels and punches are useful tools for machinists. The tool at the top of the illustration is a pin punch, used to drive out straight, taper, and roll pins. The drift punch below it is used as a starting punch for driving out pins. In the middle is a center punch that makes a starting point for drilling. The two bottom tools are cold chisels. Cold chisels are made in many shapes and are useful for cutting off rivet heads and welds.


text:
Faith & Family Media Blog
Media for family from the heart of Hollywood since 1947
| by | Father Vince Kuna
BASED ON: LOTR to le Carré, the Best Adapted Screenplays, 2000-2010
Our producer-at-large, USC film-school alum Father Vince Kuna, C.S.C., is both a movie buff and a big reader. In his BASED ON series of blog posts, he looks at works adapted to the screen from other mediums decade by decade. Here, he rounds up some of his top choices for the first decade of the century.
Best Family Film
Peter Jackson's adaptation of the Lord of the Rings trilogy and his subsequent Hobbit prequels rank amongst the best fantasy-genre films of all time. The first film works best as the classic hero's journey of Frodo Baggins. It's also the most family friendly, as it contains less of the stylistic violence that the second and third installments ramped up.
I remember vividly when I first saw the movie in theaters. I dragged my older sister, who would otherwise file the film under the category "nerdy things my little brother watches." A friend, now a sports-radio celebrity in Chicago, also tagged along somewhat begrudgingly, as he was suspicious of anything not staring Al Pacino or Robert De Niro. They both loved LOTR.
Best Source Material
The Odyssey by Homer
Of the many pieces of Western literature we pored through during my high-school years, I most enjoyed this epic poem of Odysseus' long journey home to his wife, Penelope. Revisiting the classic in adult years, it holds continual relevance, as Odysseus' struggle returning from the Trojan War (as related in Homer's The Iliad) speaks to our own nation's warriors adapting into civilian life after serving in armed conflicts.
While capturing the visual look of what was the 1930s Dust Bowl, I felt the Coen brother's 2000 adaptation, O'Brother, Where Art Thou? underserved the somber tone of Homer's work, opting instead for a comedy crime satire. Usually, I appreciate the brothers duo as the most religiously alert filmmakers of our time, so I'll give them a pass on what they described as a film "very loosely based" on the Greek tale.
Best Adaptation
The Constant Gardener (2005)
I find John le Carré spy novels somniferous. You'll still find them on my nightstand for that very reason. One exception is The Constant Gardener, which comes out of the thriller genre and ranks as the most gripping novel out of the le Carré canon.
A British diplomat, Justin Quayle (Ralph Fiennes) backtracks what lead to the mysterious death of his activist wife (Rachel Weisz, in an Oscar-winning performance). The globe-trotting search takes Quayle away from London to Nairobi, with a detour to Amsterdam.
The very year the film was released, I traveled through all three cities during a summer study abroad course in Kenya. The director, Fernando Meirelles (The Two Popes) captures the essence of each city masterfully.
Kibera, a slum of Nairobi, features citizens who are poverty-stricken, yet faith-filled; London is decadent, yet socially conscious; and Amsterdam something unique to itself, defying most any description. =
It's no wonder producers from the "Cities of Love" anthology tapped Meirells to helm a short segment of Rio, I Love You. In it, he accurately captures the Brazilian art scene. When the virus precludes us from foreign travel, films like these allow this director to whisk you to your favorite city.
Best of the Rest by Year
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000)/novel by Wang Dulu
Shrek (2001)/children's book by William Steig
The Pianist (2002)/memoir by Wladyslaw Szpilman
LOTR: The Return of the King (2003)/novel by J.R.R. Tolkien
Before Sunset (2004)/characters from Before Sunrise, directed by Richard Linklater
Munich (2005)/book Vengeance by George Jonas
Children of Men (2006)/novel by P.D. James
No Country for Old Men (2007)/novel by Cormac McCarthy
Slumdog Millionaire (2008)/novel Q & A by Vikas Swarup
Up in the Air (2009)/novel by Walter Kirn
Image: Adobe Stock
Click here to visit Father Vince Kuna's IMDB page.
Follow Family Theater Productions on our website, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube.
Holy Cross Family Ministries
CONGREGATION OF HOLY CROSS
founded in 1947 by
Venerable Patrick Peyton
fatherpeyton.org
© 2001- 2021 Holy Cross Family Ministries. All rights reserved.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Q: Does this group have a specific name Let $G$ be the group with this presentation
$$G=\left\langle x,\,y\,|\,x^n,\,\,y^m,\,\,xyx^{n-1}y\right\rangle $$
I know that if $n$ is even is a semidirect product of the kind $\mathbb Z_m  \rtimes \mathbb Z_n$ and I know that if $n=2$ is the dihedral group $D_m$. But does it have a specific name for others $n$?

A: I did a bit of looking, but I suspect they do not. Remember that a semidirect product $G\rtimes_\varphi\mkern-3mu H$ is completely determined by the normal subgroup $G$, the subgroup $H$ and the homomorphism $\varphi : H \to \text{Aut}(G)$, so in some sense a name for these groups would be superfluous.
Dihedral as a descriptor refers to the fact that these groups (along with the infinite group $\mathbb Z \rtimes \mathbb Z_2 = \langle a,b \mid b^2, bab=a^{-1}\rangle$) arise as the group generated by reflections across two planes as the (dihedral) angle between them varies. If some of the semidirect products you mention have other names, it will likely be because of a similar connection to another area of math.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Vatican City, Feb 25, 2004 / 12:00 am (CNA).- The pontificate of John Paul II is approaching a new record. On March 17 it will become the third longest in history.
In three weeks, the Holy Father will have completed 25 years, 5 months and 1 day on the throne of St. Peter, surpassing the length of Leo XIII's pontificate (1878-1903).
Only St. Peter and Pius IX have reigned longer. Pius IX guided the Church for 31 years, 7 months and 2 days, from 1846 to 1878.


So you have chosen to join Terribad Academy. Upon joining you have agreed to become a member of our academy. It wasn't our choice for you to come it was yours. However you must be able to make it so that this community is welcoming, fun, and a nice Academy. If you in any way attempt to change the quality of this academy you will regret it dearly.
Insulting, Hurtful, or threatening post, or messages are not tolerated in any manner. If you show any sign of Hostility towards another member you will punished.
Post, or Messages that promote any illegal substances or acts are forbidden. These practices will not be tolerated and you will be banned immediately if you do.
Please post your messages ONCE. The repetitions are annoying and USELESS. Bumping is allowed only after a 48 Hour Time Period.
No posting in threads that are no longer valid. No Necro-Bumping.
Any topics that may create a distraction which could cause members to panic are not welcome, and will result in harsh punishments. These topics could be, but are not limited to: Threats of hurting someone, threats of deleting someone's account, and threats of hacking someone's account.
Do not Mini-Mod. The Staff is here no need for you to get involved. This includes saying but is not limited to "Requesting Lock", "Requesting Ban".
Atleast attempt to use good grammar.


text:
Horse co-owned by Mike Tice could be on Kentucky Derby trail
Posted by PlexusGroupe on January 12, 2014, 3:18 PM EST
On the second Sunday on January, new Falcons offensive line coach Mike Tice is part owner of a colt who's taken his first steps toward racing on the first Saturday in May.
Midnight Hawk, a three-year gray colt, won Saturday's Sham Stakes at Santa Anita Park by 1 3/4 lengths. In victory, Midnight Hawk earned 10 points toward qualifying for the 2014 Kentucky Derby, which will be held on Saturday, May 3 at Churchill Downs in Louisville.
"It's pretty exciting; it's nice to be a part of a winner," Tice said after the race, according to Claire Novak of the Blood-Horse. "Any time you win it's exciting, in anything: tiddlywinks, horse racing, or football."
Tice was named the Falcons' offensive line coach last week.
Midnight Hawk set or chased the pace throughout, took the lead near the quarter pole and plugged away for the win, his first in stakes company and his second in as many starts.
Chicago Blackhawks coach Joel Quenneville is also a co-owner of the horse, who is trained by Bob Baffert.
Other stakes races seem likely for Midnight Hawk as Baffert further tests his readiness for the rigors of the Triple Crown trail. While Midnight Hawk is no sure thing to run in the Kentucky Derby, his career is off to a good start.
8 responses to "Horse co-owned by Mike Tice could be on Kentucky Derby trail"
ihateravens says:
Wonder if Mike will sell me the free ticket he gets to the derby?
siggtacular says:
Senseless article
Can't tell from the picture but I imagine it runs with a pencil tucked behind one ear.
torqueolo says:
Early favourite for most uninteresting story of 2014. We want more articles about Romeo Crennel's cats
i10east says:
Discount Daaa-ble check! *I just wanted to say that on a Chicago thread*
kd75 says:
Tice's horse vs Parcells' horse vs Francesa's horse in a box trifecta in the Run for the Roses…
The horse just finished his second interview to be the next head coach of the Vikings.
gb4mn0 says:
"Its pretty exciting; its nice to be part of a winner," Tice said after the race. Those are the exact words Tice uttered when he signed on with the Jags in 2006 after having just wasted 10 years of his life in Minnysoda.


text:
Cast : Charlie Hunnam, Astrid Bergès-Frisbey, Jude Law	Screenplay : Joby Harold, Guy Ritchie, Lionel Wigram	Release : April 27, 2017	Director : Guy Ritchie	Genre : Action, Drama, Fantasy	Country : USA	Stream Now	Tim's Rating : Bang for your Buck :
Posted by Tim Brayton Posted on May - 17 - 2017 0 Comments
You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you
King Arthur: Legend of the Sword, it might well say on the wrapper, but it might very well be the least King Arthury King Arthur movie ever made. The general shape of the thing is that of a Robin Hood story, particularly the 2010 Robin Hood prequel thingy with Russell Crowe. And if you're going to be reminded of any Robin Hood, that's the worst one.
So anyway, it's the familiar story of Arthur (Charlie Hunnam), son of the great King Uther Pendragon (Eric Bana - bland acting skills, it seems, are hereditary), who died in a coup orchestrated by his brother Vortigern (Jude Law). This happened just after Uther successfully destroyed the evil wizard king Mordred, and his army of 200-foot-tall elephants. Dropped, Moses-like, into a river, the boy Arthur is found by the prostitutes of a brothel in the prosperous ex-Roman town Londinium, and rises to manhood, picking up skills in martial arts along the way from a local Chinese monk named George (Tom Wu). By the time he reaches Hunnam-size, Arthur has become the quick-talking leader of a group of what I can only rightly call Cockney gangsters, including Wet Stick (Kingsley Ben-Adir) and Back Lack (Neil Maskell), the three of them serving as the brothel's guardian spirits.
Thomas Malory it ain't. That's not a "problem" per se; the fact that director & co-writer Guy Ritchie has arranged to re-imagine the Matter of Britain in the idiom of his own cheeky London gangster pictures of yore, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch, is a bit charming, if decidedly ill-advised. In another world it's easy to imagine a version of Legend of the Sword that's delightfully campy in its horribly mistaken modernism, and plays up that campiness as part of its style. Sadly, Ritchie is a director for whom camp (at least, deliberate camp) is a completely foreign notion, and the weird, upsetting thing about Legend of the Sword is how very much the-opposite-of-fun it is. Ritchie takes it all much too seriously, which is a tricky enough thing to do in any film involving magic swords and characters with names like "Vortigern", and is I think entirely impossible to do when the film furthermore has an Arthur, King of All Britain, who talks like a tertiary character in a 1970s Michael Caine picture.
So anyway, back to the story: Vortigern is a paranoid tyrant, and when the lost sword Excalibur shows up in the bottom of a lakebed, plunged into a large stone, the evil king knows that a prophecy is afoot. So he rounds up all the young men of Arthur's approximate age to take turns pulling on the sword, and when it's Arthur's turn, you can guess what happens: a scene that resembles the Camelot legendarium. Anyway, Arthur is set to be executed after his triumph triggers a wave of revolutionary sentiment among the Britons, but he's rescued by a group of Uther loyalists: Sir Bedevere (Djimon Hounsou), Goosefat Bill (Aidan Gillen), Percival (Craig McGinlay), Rubio (Freddie Fox), and a nameless female mage (Astrid Bergès-Frisbey), an acolyte of the great, mysteriously hidden Merlin. Together with Arthur's gang, they plot to overthrow Vortigern's corrupt government and install Arthur as the rightful king.
It's weird as hell, lacking anything that really clearly would appeal to the people for whom plugging the words "King Arthur" into a movie's title counts as a draw. Presumably, the actual kinging would have taken place in some or all of the five planned sequels that are surely never going to see the light of day now, and I'm baffled and terrified that anybody ever thought that was a reasonable thing to set up in advance. Anyway, the fact that this is basically non-Arthurian in the extreme is more of a curiosity; it's still possible to imagine some version of this story working. That version would have had a substantially different cast: I can't think of anybody with a sizable role that's legitimately good in the role, though at least Hounsou, Maskell, and maybe Law avoid humiliating themselves. Hunnam is, to be fair, undone by a role that has been written to be completely unplayable, so it's not fair to lay the blame directly at his feet; still, he's got nothing much to offer but good looks, and even those aren't much to speak of in the firmament of blond guys with British accents (let us all agree, though, that Hunnam is much better when he can use his British accent than when he's struggling to put on an American one).
But any decent Legend of the Sword would absolutely need a do-over on everything to do with its style. It's got some killer special effects - it might have cost far too much, but the money showed up onscreen - but a manner of editing scenes together that's hellbent on making those visuals impossible to see clearly. Some of it's just the normal 21st Century "let's cut the action together much too fast for absolutely no purpose" bullshit, but generally, it's much more inventive in how restlessly and antic all of it is. Conversations jump back and forth from present to flashback (or flashforward - or flash-alternate-universe), adding a level of kinesis that must have been a lot of fun to imagine and shot and edit, but is too manic and wearying in the viewing. A few times, thankfully only a few, the film ramps the speed up or down, going all Zack Snyder on us, and of course you never want a movie to go all Zack Snyder on us.
What's particularly irritating is that these flourishes of high-speed filmmaking are used very sparingly indeed, which leaves the film without any consistent aesthetic sensibility. Sometimes it's unpleasantly fast, much more often it's unpleasantly sluggish, creeping forward with its non-story by minuscule inches. The one thing it never manages to be is correctly paced to draw us through the story at an urgent clip without strapping on the rocket boots.
Meanwhile, the film indulges in some weird design peccadilloes: an obsession with snakes and snake-like things, for one, those kitschy gigantic elephants for another, and costumes for the bad guys that reach Star Wars levels of anti-subtlety in putting all of the wicked people in shiny black. The results are one hell of a hokey, overdone fantasy, and not all the gravity of performance or of direction can salvage it. The film is utterly monotonous despite being mindlessly busy, and when you have something this over-the-top in its caffeinated laddish enthusiasm for swords, monsters, and magic, monotony is a particularly galling sin.
Categories: action, arthuriana, costume dramas, fantasy, men with swords, summer movies
Lancelot du Lac (1974)


text:
Pamela Jorden: Reflector
Installation view: Pamela Jorden: Reflector, Klaus Von Nichtssagend, New York, 2020. Courtesy the artist and Klaus von Nichtssagend Gallery.
Reflector comprises five, large-scale oil-on-linen paintings. They are variously shaped, and consist of two interrelated parts, like bodies embracing whilst moving through space, easily bringing to mind an improvised dance—figures in motion, relating, communicating, combining. Both the stained, intense color, and the shapes are dynamic. Jorden reacts moment to moment during the process of making each painting, improvising and responding along the way. Paint in this case is revealed to be the trace of actions taken on the material support, fluid and organic. This is in clear contrast to the other order of dynamism—the clear-cut shapes of each part of each diptych: profiles that offer a skewed geometry, rather than a static symmetry.
Heliotrope (2020), the title referring to a Heliotrope (from the Greek helios, sun, and tropos, movement), a plant that turns to face the sun, is apposite. The 72-inch diameter rondo has a vertical curved segment in its center, as the right side of the diptych is a half disc and the left side a crescent that fit together. There is a strong sense of sweeping movement, the body arcing, arms outstretched. Jorden avoids the use of painted, gestural brush marks that typify another California based artist, Mary Weatherford, though the two share an investment in keeping the paint and support, the exposed linen, or ground part of the image. Spine (2020), like the other paintings with a maximum vertical dimension of 72 inches, evokes human size, stance and motion. The fragmented, curvy angularity maintains an unexpected profile and brings to mind Katharina Grosse's sculptural painted objects. Here, the stained warm upper section and cooler lower section do not simply receive the drawn, sprayed color from a distance as with Grosse. Rather, the paint here is pushed and dragged around and across on the surface by Jorden working close to, and moving in proximity with the shaped supports.
Looking at this group of paintings installed in a single room makes me think of Matisse's Barnes mural. I think of Matisse negotiating the alcove shapes that the paintings of dancers had to use, and incorporate, in anything but a passive attitude—the resulting shapes, as in his cut-outs, reflect the dynamism of dance and music and shifting color as light: temporal experience. Jorden conveys the strong southern Californian light using bright and subdued, luminous color together with a physical sense of passage in the interlocking shapes of the support. This emphasis on meditation of movement: bodies in space, is new in Jorden's work, and inspired by her friend, the artist Virginia Holt (1915–2015). They met after Jorden saw an exhibition of Holt's paintings at the Jancar Gallery in Los Angeles, and was later invited to visit Holt at home by the curator of the exhibition, Katy Crowe, a longtime friend of Holt's. In the smaller front space of the gallery Jorden has curated a group of paintings and prints. The visual and conceptual discourse between the two artists' work is extraordinary, complementary and, rare. Holt's works are figurative, retaining direct association with human form and are consummately achieved works. Holt was very involved with music, performance and painting, and amongst the artists she counted as friends was another polymath Don van Vliet (Captain Beefheart). Jorden has continued this integration, or exploration of physical experience, of being embodied, into a visual form, where despite being ostensibly static the painting is anything but motionless. Painting conceived thus, projects philosophically the relation to the world we all experience, and dissolves categorical and inert positions in favor of both flux and continuity.


Speedometer does not work and it has some cosmetic issues, it will be sold as is with a VA state rejection sticker. It runs and drives.
Used 2001 Volkswagen New Beetle for sale is a White 2001 Volkswagen Beetle 2.5 Trim Car for Sale in Fredericksburg VA. Find other listings by searching for 2001 Volkswagen Beetle in Woodbridge on Oodle Classifieds.


One of the most notable moments to come out of the Grammy Awards ceremony on Sunday night was unfortunately a cameo from former first lady Michelle Obama.
The crowd full of celebrities embraced the former first lady with open arms as she walked onto the stage holding hands with Jennifer Lopez, Lady Gaga and Jada Pinkett Smith.
Lopez, Gaga and Smith spoke about the music — and them Michelle Obama began speaking.
Before she could get a full sentence out, the crowd started screaming and cheering with applause.
"Music has always helped me tell my story … whether we like country or rap or rock, music helps us share ourselves, our dignity and sorrows, our hopes and joys," said Obama.
Following the ceremony, Obama took to social media to say she was "thrilled" to participate in such event.
"For me, a big part of friendship is showing up for your girls ― whether that's for a birthday, a quick catch-up after work, or a major milestone," Obama wrote along with posting a picture of herself with Lopez, Gaga, Smith, and Grammys host Alicia Keys.
While some viewers were overjoyed with her appearance, others recognized it as another political statement from Hollywood.


Set in the picturesque town of Conca dei Marini, B&B Il Pavone is on the Amalfi Coast between Positano and Amalfi. Each room has its own balcony with a view of the Mediterranean Sea. Rooms here have a modern design and feature a 32" LED satellite TV, free Wi-Fi and a Fridge. Each one has a private bathroom with a hydromassage shower and hairdryer. Il Pavone serves a continental breakfast each morning which can be enjoyed in the breakfast room or out on your private balcony. The B&B provides free outdoor parking and a free shuttle to local locations within a 5 km radius. Surrounded by olive groves and citrus trees, the property is just 4 km outside Amalfi and 20 minutes' drive from Positano.


text:
The upcoming Global Manufacturing and Industrialisation Summit (GMIS) in Russia will focus on key topics such as the 4th IR, nature-inspired technologies, man-machine interface, circular economy and women's entrepreneurship.
The upcoming Global Manufacturing and Industrialisation Summit (GMIS) in Russia will focus on key topics such as the 4th IR, nature-inspired technologies, man-machine interface, circular economy, women's entrepreneurship and empowerment, and industrial policy.
The UAE Ministry of Energy and Industry and the United Nations Industrial Development Organization(UNIDO) have called on global leaders from government, industry and academia to participate at the second edition of GMIS taking place from July 9 to 11 in the Russian city of Yekaterinburg.
GMIS2019will gather thought leaders from the global manufacturing community to engage in debates across over40 sessions focusing on critical topics, including sustainability in manufacturing, circular economy, food security, future-cities, cybersecurity, the evolution of 3D printing, the future of work, and industrial policy and their role in achieving the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
Driving a dialogue around the role that manufacturers must play to support and advance the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is top of the Summit's agenda, with special sessions dedicated to exploring ways in which industrial development can help tackle issues such as world poverty and hunger, while safeguarding the environment and ensuring social inclusion.
Suhail Mohamed Faraj Al Mazrouei, Minister of Energy and Industry, United Arab Emirates, said:
"The UAE is fully committed to transforming the future of manufacturing in line with the SDGs and ensuring it plays a crucial role in helping to build the global economy.
"This drive is enabling us to shape a strong manufacturing sector and to lead global efforts to modernise it with Fourth Industrial Revolution technology. We invite policymakers from across the world to take part in driving this dialogue forward by placing 4IR technologies at the centre of their national agendas. We are proud to host the second edition of GMIS in Russia's manufacturing hub, Yekaterinburg, from 9 to 11 July 2019."
LI Yong, director general, UNIDO said: "The Fourth Industrial Revolution offers boundless possibilities for achieving the SDGs. However, many questions remain to be answered on associated challenges, especially the future of work."
"GMIS2019 will offer a vision on the future of manufacturing through convening global partners in policymaking, business, research and civil society, working towards a consensus on how to achieve an inclusive and sustainable Fourth Industrial Revolution. Multi-stakeholder for a such as GMIS can provide added value, by constructing robust partnerships and offering the thought leadership necessary to drive the Fourth Industrial Revolution towards the achievement of the SDGs.
"In its capacity as co-chair of GMIS, UNIDO will mobilize its expertise, experience and network for the creation of shared prosperity leveraging the Fourth Industrial Revolution, through collaboration with all relevant partners in industrial development," he added.
GMIS is the world's first cross-industry and cross-functional platform that unites manufacturers, governments and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), technologists, and investors to build a roadmap towards investing in capabilities, fostering innovation and developing the skills needed to position the manufacturing sector at the forefront of global economic growth and a key driver to advance the 17SDGs.
Under the theme of Nature-Inspired Technology and the Future of Manufacturing, GMIS2019 will highlight some of the greatest innovations in biomimicry through dedicated sessions that explore the many ways manufacturing can draw inspiration from existing systems in the natural world to solve complex human problems.
With a dedicated theme for each day – global, local, and future context – the Summit will ensure that all discussions are put into perspective for manufacturers and governments alike, to enable them to create clear roadmaps towards achieving tangible outcomes. The Summit will also hold five Global Panorama Sessions covering developments in key regions including Eurasia, Africa, Latin America, South and East Asia, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).
Badr Al-Olama, head of the Organising Committee for the Global Manufacturing and Industrialisation Summit (GMIS), said: "Building on the great success of GMIS2017 in Abu Dhabi, GMIS2019 in Russia will once again unite the global manufacturing community and reinforce the importance of embracing the Fourth Industrial Revolution to promote economic and social development.
"Nature has already proven to be a powerful source of inspiration to both scientists and technologists, and GMIS2019 aims to highlight its greater role in supporting the advancement of the Sustainable Development Goals."
In addition to the main panels that are taking place, GMIS2019 will host TEDx style discussions engaging over 200 international and Russian youths, start-ups and small and medium enterprises; an award ceremony for the Mohammed bin Rashid Initiative for Global Prosperity, where four winners who have put forward solutions to real-world challenges will be awarded with up to $1million in prizes; and working groups, in partnership with the Lloyd's Register Foundation, to identify and assess the knowledge gaps, safety challenges, risks and opportunities associated with the deployment of4IR technologies in manufacturing.
The Global Manufacturing and Industrialisation Summit will be held over the course of three days alongside INNOPROM, an annual Industrial Trade Fair held in Russia since 2010serving as a platform to set the foundations of industrial policy.
Text: TradeArabia News Service
Photo: http://www.arabianbusiness.com
Previous PostRussian Business Council of Australia is a partner of GMIS2019Next PostRBCA принял участие во Втором Глобальном саммите производства и индустриализации GMIS 2019


A friend asked on a forum if anyone wanted to play Gregor Hutton's Remember Tomorrow – Near Future Role-Playing as Play by Post. I said 'Yes!' and ordered the game.
Below follows my impressions from reading it.
The book has the usual indie format, 6×9, soft cover and weighs in at 48 pages. John Hodgson has made a nice cover and the interior is full of grainy photo manipulations.
Even for 48 pages it is a fast read, many of the pages have full page illustrations and some pages are filled with tables and lists.
The setting is the near future cyber-punk from Neuromancer and Bladerunner. The game gives enough information that someone unfamiliar with the source material could get the general idea.
The rules are light and fast and work at the conflict/scene resolution level. The players roll 3d10, and assign the dice once rolled to the three stats Able, Ready and Willing. Every die lower than or equal to the stat gives one success, most successes wins.
Every PC has a goal that he or she is working towards. Once the PC is Able, Ready and Willing the goal is reached.
Most of the game exists in the form, which is a variant of rotating GM. There is a pool of PCs and Factions. Each player holds one PC as their own, remaining PCs are NPCs for the time being. But under certain conditions a player may switch the held PC for any available in the pool. The factions are the opponents of the PCs, and both new PCs and Factions can be introduced even after the game has started.
There is a strict division of the game into scenes, and the players take turns acting as the Controller (GM) who sets scenes to challenge the PCs of the other players.
The setting is ok, it would have been nice to get more information, but there is enough to go on.
The rules are good, they only reflect the PCs and Factions struggles. But that is the focus of the game, and they do it well.
The form is excellent, there are clear instructions and an example showing how the game should be played.
Yes, obviously. We have just completed character generation and are currently building the Factions that will oppose the PCs.
But, will I play it at a table, will it go in my con bag?
Maybe, I'm not sure. There is a while lot of overlap between Remember Tomorrow and my own game While the World Ends. They solve similar problems in similar ways. It seems that WtWE has a more predictable game length and the simpler rule set of the two. On the other hand actual play will start quicker with Remember Tomorrow as no time is spent on doing the lengthy collaborative prep work of WtWE.
A Thousand and One Nights – A Game of Enticing Stories by Meguey Baker is a long time favorite indie/story game of mine. We have been playing it for years and I have demoed it on cons, or rather; We have been playing the playtest version for years… I got the playtest game from Meguey's blog and have been playing it since.
I was ordering other games from Leisure Games, saw 1001 Nights and ordered one just to compare the retail version with the playtest version we have been playing.
The book itself is a small, almost square booklet of 48 pages. The layout is very odd, there is lots of space, and the game is a quick read. There are a few old full page illustrations by H.J. Ford showing scenes from the tales.
The setting is the fairy tales in A Thousand and One Nights, familiar to everyone. The book assumes familiarity and just adds some details like name customs and descriptions of clothing for the period.
Play takes place at two levels. The players play courtiers at the court of the Sultan, caught behind the palace walls. These courtiers scheme against each other and plot their escape. But they also tell stories, which makes a game within the game.
The rules are simple, and mostly concern the story within the story-level of play, and are focused on the collection of dice. Yes, in 1001 Nights the players collect dice, any dice can be used, as long as they have an even number of faces. After every story told in the game the player assigns them to three pools, 1. Keeping well with the Sultan, 2. Planning escape and 3. Scheming against other courtiers, and then rolls them to see the effects the story had on the courtiers.
Since there are two levels of play, there are two different forms in the game, and both are clearly described. When playing the courtiers in the Sultan's palace the game is GM-less free narration, coupled with events dictated by the end game of each told story, depicting the scheming of the courtiers. At the story level the game is more traditional, the story teller acts like a traditional GM, and the players are the players, playing the roles of the main characters in the story. Actions are resolved by the GM assigning the different outcomes of an action to ranges of result of a die, and rolling to see what happens. The players ask questions, acting as the courtiers, and all questions answered in the story give them one die.
The setting is weak as presented in the game, but since everyone knows the setting already it is not a problem for actual play.
The rules are good, there are enough of them to support the courtier level of play, without getting in the way in the story level. And they are clearly explained.
The form is good, there are clear instructions on how to play the game, and there is an extended example of play in the last chapter of the book showing the nuances.
Well, I already did, sort of. I have played the playtest version lots. Most up to this point in this review is valid for both the playtest and retail versions of the game (the playtest version lacks illustrations and the example of play).
However the retail version addresses some issues we have had with pacing in the game, and is just a little bit more streamlined in other aspects, so I think we'll switch to the retail version of the game from now on.
www.nightskygames.com – Official 1001 Nights page.


Shoulder height: 23 – 30 inches. Weight: 120 – 145 pounds.
The coat is short and soft with loose fitting skin.
This breed is extremely loyal, patient and devoted to family. Socialize with other animals early to avoid aggressiveness with other dogs.
Dogue De Bordeaux have a good and calm temperament.
They need lots of exercise and need to be taken on a daily, long walk.
Dogue De Bordeaux need lots of socialization as puppies so they do not become aggressive with people or other animals.
This dog needs plenty of exercise.
Dogue De Bordeaux/French Mastiff dog?
Originating in France, the Dogue de Bordeaux is also known as the French Mastiff. They are thought to have descended from the Bulldog, Tibetan Mastiff, and Greek and Roman Molossus. This breed has been used for such tasks as hunters, herders, protectors, fighters, and could haul heavy objects. They have a very good guarding instinct without the aggressiveness, actually having a rather calm and peaceful temperament. This loyal and affectionate companion dog is great with children. The Dogue De Bordeaux is best with an experienced dog owner who can confidently assert their leadership over their pup. Very little grooming is needed for their coat, which ranges from light fawn to a dark red. Regular brushing is needed. The Dogue De Bordeaux was recognized by the American Kennel Club in 2008.


text:
Homepage > Joss Whedon's Tv Series > Buffy The Vampire Slayer > Reviews > Buffy on the 14 kick-ass TV women
« Previous : "Angel : Aftermath" Comic Book - Issue 38 - Available for pre-order ! (you save 20%)
Next : Listen to Buffy the Vampire Slayer Theme slowed down 800% »
Tvovermind.com
Buffy on the 14 kick-ass TV women
Sunday 22 August 2010, by Webmaster
Buffy Summers (Sarah Michelle Gellar) – Buffy: The Vampire Slayer
Buffy was not the first woman who literally kicked ass on television, but it would be easy to say that she was a strong foundation for many of the female roles that came after her. If we had to pick the toughest female character ever, Buffy would probably fit the bill and that's not just because she's probably kicked more actual ass than every other female character combined.
It might be cheating to say that Buffy deserves top honors considering she was gifted with supernatural powers, but that would be missing the point of the entire show. The vampires and other demons were really metaphors for highschool and life. Buffy was the quintessential teenage girl for most of the early years, Slayer duties notwithstanding. She just wanted to fit in, she liked shopping, she loved her boyfriend and she hated her bratty younger sister. But it's the very fact that when push came to shove Buffy was able to transcend her own wants and desires to do what was right (like send the man she loved to Hell in order to save the world) that made her strong.
Buffy wasn't perfect. She could be selfish and whiney, or annoying and petulant. She could also be self-destructive, as her relationship with Spike can attest. But, when the chips were down, Buffy could always be counted on to pull through for her friends and for strangers. In the end, that makes her not only a kick-ass woman, but a true hero as well.


text:
286 F. 3d 696 - Johnson v. Ashcroft
286 F.3d
286 F3d 696 Johnson v. Ashcroft
286 F.3d 696
Jimmy JOHNSON, Petitioner,
John ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Argued November 7, 2001.
Filed April 16, 2002.
Appeal from the Court of Appeals, Rendell, Circuit Judge. Visuvanthan Rudrakumaran [ARGUED], New York, NY, Counsel for Petitioner.
Jimmy Johnson, William C. Minick [ARGUED], Michael P. Lindemann, Christopher C. Fuller, Alison M. Igoe, Office of Immigration Litigation Civil Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Counsel for Respondent.
Before BECKER, Chief Judge, and McKEE and RENDELL, Circuit Judges.
OPINION OF THE COURT
RENDELL, Circuit Judge.
Jimmy Johnson petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA" or "Board") order reversing a grant of asylum and withholding of deportation based on changed country conditions.
The BIA held that the Immigration Judge did not have jurisdiction over these claims at the time he considered Johnson's application for relief under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ("CAT")1 because the case had been reopened and remanded for the "sole purpose" of considering the CAT claim. The question before us is whether on remand the Immigration Judge's jurisdiction was limited to the CAT issue. For the reasons below, we conclude that, in deciding that it was limited, the Board departed without reasonable explanation from its own policy that it established in Matter of Patel, 16 I. & N. Dec. 600, 1978 WL 36476 (BIA 1978). Accordingly, the Petition for Review will be granted and we will vacate the Board's order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
When Johnson entered the United States from Liberia in 1994 without a valid visa or travel documents, he was placed in exclusion proceedings and taken into custody by the Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS"). His initial application for asylum under Immigration and Naturalization Act ("INA") § 208, 8 U.S.C. § 1158, and withholding of deportation under former INA § 243(h), 8 U.S.C. § 1253(h) (1995), was denied and he was ordered excluded. The Board affirmed on appeal.
Johnson then filed a motion with the Board to reopen and/or reconsider asylum and withholding of deportation in 1996. In a published opinion, the Board denied the motion as untimely, holding that the motion to reconsider was more than 60 days late, that the motion to reopen was 2 days late, and that a motion is "filed" when it is received rather than when an applicant in custody sends it. See In re J-J-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 976, 1997 WL 434418 (BIA 1997). The Board considered the exception to the timeliness requirements for motions to apply for asylum based on changed circumstances in the applicant's country of nationality, see 8 C.F.R. S 3.2(c)(3)(ii), but concluded that the exception did not apply because Johnson failed to provide material evidence of changed conditions that was unavailable at prior hearings. See In re J-J-, 21 I. & N. Dec. at 981-82.
In 1999, Johnson filed a motion with the Board to reopen for consideration of relief under CAT, which the Board granted. The Board's order provided that
[W]e ... remand this matter to the Immigration Court for consideration of the respondent's claim pursuant to [CAT] regulations.
FURTHER ORDER: The record is remanded to the Immigration Judge for further proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and for the entry of a new decision.
The effect of this remand order is at issue here.
While the case was on remand, Johnson made a written motion before the Immigration Judge urging the court "to consider the respondent's eligibility for asylum in the proceedings based on changed country conditions." The Immigration Judge considered this motion as well as the motion to withhold deportation under CAT, ultimately granting both. In his decision, the Immigration Judge addressed whether his jurisdiction was limited to the CAT claim. While acknowledging that the Board and the Supreme Court have set a high standard for reopening immigration proceedings because of the interest in finality, see, e.g., INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 107, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988); In re A-G-, 19 I. & N. Dec. 502, 503-04, 1987 WL 108955 (BIA 1987), he reasoned that the decision was no longer final once the case had been reopened, so that this interest was not implicated. Moreover, he made the point — uncontested by the INS — that if Johnson had become eligible for adjustment of status in the meantime, that matter could have been entertained by him on remand. This, he stated, supported his view that "issues besides that for which the Board specifically reopened the case" could be heard on remand. He found that application of this principle was particularly appropriate in these circumstances, where so much of the evidence of the CAT claim was relevant to the asylum claim as well.
The INS appealed the Immigration Judge's decision to the Board, which affirmed the grant of withholding relief under CAT, but vacated the grant of asylum and withholding of deportation. The Board did not address the merits of the asylum claim, but rather vacated on the ground that the Immigration Judge had lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion because the Board's remand referred jurisdiction back to the Immigration Judge only as to the CAT motion.
In its opinion, the Board began by citing the general rule that "a remand, unless the Board qualifies or limits it for a specific purpose, is effective for the stated purpose and for consideration of any and all matters which the Immigration Judge deems appropriate in the exercise of his administrative discretion or which are brought to his attention in compliance with the appropriate regulations." Citing Matter of Patel, 16 I. & N. Dec. 600, 1978 WL 36476 (BIA 1978) (Board's emphasis). It then pointed out that the standards to reopen for relief under CAT are more easily satisfied than those to reopen for other purposes.
Finally, the Board looked to the background regulations and the relief sought in Johnson's motion to reopen for consideration under CAT, reasoning that both indicated that "the applicant's motion was filed to pursue this limited form of relief and, thus, was granted and remanded to the Immigration Judge for the limited purpose of entertaining his application for relief pursuant to [CAT]." Specifically, the Board pointed to the regulation providing that an alien under final order of exclusion "may move to reopen proceedings for the sole purpose of seeking" withholding of removal under CAT. 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(b)(2).2 For all of these reasons, it concluded that the Immigration Judge's jurisdiction on remand was limited to the CAT claim.
Johnson filed a timely appeal of the portion of the Board's order vacating the Immigration Judge's grant of asylum and withholding of deportation.
We have jurisdiction under INA § 106, 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a), as modified by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 ("IIRIRA").3 While we will often defer to agency interpretations in the immigration context, see Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984); Abdille v. Ashcroft, 242 F.3d 477, 484-85 (3d Cir. 2001) (citing INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415, 424-25, 119 S.Ct. 1439, 143 L.Ed.2d 590 (1999)), this case concerns the scope of jurisdiction of the Immigration Judge and the BIA as it has been interpreted in the BIA's own precedent. The parties and the Board agree that it rests essentially on one decision — Matter of Patel, 16 I. & N. Dec. 600, 1978 WL 36476 (BIA 1978). Immigration regulations provide that Patel, because it is a published opinion, "shall serve as precedent[ ] in all proceedings involving the same issue or issues." 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(g). The issue before us, therefore, is whether the Board departed from its own precedent.
Although an agency can change or adapt its policies, it acts arbitrarily if it departs from its established precedents without "announcing a principled reason" for the departure. Fertilizer Inst. v. Browner, 163 F.3d 774, 778 (3d Cir.1998) (noting the well-established rule that an agency can depart from precedent only with explanation); see also Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 41-43, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983); Chisholm v. Defense Logistics Agency, 656 F.2d 42, 47 (3d Cir. 1981) (agencies must follow, distinguish, or overrule their own precedent). Numerous courts have applied this principle in the immigration context,4 as we do here. Further, if it departs from an announced rule without explanation or an "avowed alteration," such action could be viewed as "arbitrary, capricious, [or] an abuse of discretion." INS v. Yang, 519 U.S. 26, 32, 117 S.Ct. 350, 136 L.Ed.2d 288 (1996). Here, the Board has not announced an alteration of the policy set forth in Patel. Thus, if the Board did in fact depart from Patel, it acted arbitrarily and we should overturn its ruling.
We begin our analysis with a discussion of the Board's opinion in Matter of Patel, 16 I. & N. Dec. 600, 1978 WL 36476 (BIA 1978), in which the Board established the standard for the scope of remand orders in immigration proceedings. While few cases or Board decisions elaborate on Patel's standard, and its language is often quoted without elaboration,5 it is widely acknowledged to govern this situation. This is not disputed here: the parties and the Board simply offer competing interpretations of the standard the case sets forth.
Before the Board in Patel was a motion to reopen proceedings so that the respondent could apply for relief under § 244(a)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1254(a)(1). In a two-page decision, the Board found that it lacked jurisdiction to decide this motion because it had previously reopened the case for consideration of respondent's rights under asylum provisions and had remanded the case. Accordingly, the Immigration Judge, and not the Board, had jurisdiction.6 Patel set forth the relevant test as follows:
[W]hen the Board remands a case to an immigration judge for further proceedings, it divests itself of jurisdiction of that case unless jurisdiction is expressly retained. Further, when this is done, unless the Board qualifies or limits the remand for a specific purpose, the remand is effective for the stated purpose and for consideration of any and all matters which the Service officer deems appropriate in the exercise of his administrative discretion or which are brought to his attention in compliance with the appropriate regulations.
Under this formulation, the Board will have no continuing jurisdiction if remand is ordered, unless the Board has "expressly retained" jurisdiction. And, even if it has expressly retained jurisdiction,7 the Immigration Judge on remand can consider the stated purpose and other appropriate matters unless the remand is qualified or limited to a specific purpose. That is, for the Board to retain jurisdiction over all but a narrow issue, generally it must do two things in the text of its remand order: expressly retain jurisdiction, and limit the remand to a specific purpose. The Board did not do either here.
1. Express retention of jurisdiction
The government argues that the Board limited the Immigration Judge's jurisdiction by stating that "we ... remand this matter to the Immigration Court for consideration of the respondent's claim pursuant to[CAT] regulations" and citing the relevant regulations. It proposes that this same language both expressly retained Board jurisdiction over everything but Johnson's CAT claims, and qualified and limited the remand to this specific purpose. By reaching this conclusion without considering separately the "express retention" and "qualifying or limiting" requirements, it ignores the fact that Patel implies that there are at least some circumstances in which language could expressly retain jurisdiction without qualifying or limiting the remand. Otherwise, Patel's second sentence — "Further, when this is done ..." — would be superfluous. Accordingly, we examine each of Patel's requirements in turn, beginning with its statement that the Board generally no longer has jurisdiction when it has remanded a case, except when it "expressly retains" jurisdiction over it.
Patel itself does not elaborate on the concept of "express retention" of jurisdiction. After setting forth the test, it simply states that the remand order at issue was "not limited or qualified," bypassing analysis of "express retention." And, there is no caselaw discussing how we should interpret this language in this context. We thus turn for guidance to the common definition of "express" as "explicit," in contrast to implicit or inferred. Black's Law Dictionary, for instance, defines "express" as "[c]lear; definite; explicit; plain.... Made known distinctly and explicitly, and not left to inference." BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 580 (6th ed. 1990). Other dictionaries give substantially similar definitions. See, e.g., WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 803 (1993) (defining "express" as "directly and distinctly stated or expressed rather than implied or left to inference ... definite, clear, explicit, unmistakable").
The most obvious way for a tribunal to "expressly retain jurisdiction" is by stating that it is doing precisely that. In In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. Sales Practice Litig., 261 F.3d 355, 367 (3d Cir.2001), we characterized the district court as having "expressly retained exclusive jurisdiction" over certain settlement proceedings where its order simply stated that it "retain[ed] exclusive jurisdiction as to all matters relating to [settlement] administration." In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. Sales Practice Litig., 962 F.Supp. 450, 566 ¶ 10 (D.N.J.1997). And in other situations where the adjective "express" is used, we have viewed it as requiring an actual, stated reference or mention. In Berckeley Inv. Group, Ltd. v. Colkitt, 259 F.3d 135, 141 (3d Cir.2001), for instance, we found no "express determination" that there was no just reason for delay where the district court's order did not use the phrase "no just cause for delay" or any similar statement.
Here, the remand order did not state that the Board retained jurisdiction, nor did it make any reference at all to the Board's jurisdiction. In this context, we see no reason to interpret "express" in a way other than as it is commonly understood. Given Patel, we cannot conclude that the order on its face expressly retained jurisdiction.
2. Qualification or limitation to a specific purpose
Even had the Board expressly retained jurisdiction, our inquiry would not end there. Patel then tells us: "[f]urther, when this is done, unless the Board qualifies or limits the remand for a specific purpose, the remand is effective for the stated purpose and for consideration of any and all matters...." It, thus, provides for two possible scenarios. If the Board "qualifie[d] or limit[ed] the remand for a specific purpose," then the Immigration Judge would be limited to that purpose. But if the Board did not include such qualifications or limitations, then the Immigration Judge could appropriately consider the stated purpose and "any and all matters" deemed appropriate or brought under relevant regulations.
Clearly, here, the Board did state a purpose — consideration of Johnson's CAT claims. But the language of Patel just quoted contemplates that an order can articulate a purpose without being qualified or limited. The general rule that a remand encompasses the stated purpose and other matters clearly assumes and anticipates the normal practice of the Board, namely a remand for a stated purpose. Under Patel, the Immigration Judge's jurisdiction is narrowed only when the remand order is qualified or limited, which, given the structure of Patel's sentence, must be more than a statement of purpose alone.
Although the Board stated a purpose, it did not limit or qualify the remand, so the Immigration Judge could then hear a wide range of matters. The government urges us to find that "[b]y explicitly stating that it was remanding the petitioner's case for consideration pursuant to regulations that govern claims under the Convention Against Torture only, the Board specifically limited and qualified the basis of its remand." The difficulty with this argument is that Patel assumes a purpose will be "stated," as it was, but none of the limiting language that the government points to in its papers — "only" and "sole and express purpose" — or that the Board points to in its decision — "sole purpose" — appears in the order. Without such limiting language, the order contains nothing more than a stated purpose.
We note, further, that the remand at issue here is similar to the one in Patel, which the Board found was not qualified or limited, in that it refers to a specific regulatory provision. In Patel, the Board had previously ordered reopening in view of respondent's rights under a particular asylum provision, Patel, 16 I. & N. Dec. at 601, whereas here the order referred to the CAT regulations. This statement of a purpose was not a limitation in Patel, so it similarly should not be in this situation.
3. The scope of the Immigration Judge's jurisdiction
Because the Board's order stated a purpose but did not limit remand to that purpose, Patel instructs that the Immigration Judge could consider Johnson's CAT claims and "any and all matters which [the Immigration Judge] deem[ed] appropriate in the exercise of his administrative discretion or which [were] brought to his attention in compliance with the appropriate regulations." Patel, 16 I. & N. Dec. at 601 (emphasis added). For the reasons below, we believe that the asylum claim was the type of matter that Patel contemplated an Immigration Judge would hear in these circumstances.
In its opinion, the Board focused on the second part of Patel's sentence, which refers to the "appropriate regulations." Not only did the Board emphasize the phrase when quoting Patel's key passage, but it also characterized Patel as "requiring purposes for remand to be in compliance with the appropriate regulation." But this is not what Patel says. Instead, the phrase refers to the manner of bringing matters to the Immigration Judge's attention, and — particularly with its use of "any and all" — seems to be an expansive, not a narrowing, phrase.
The Board's ruling here might also be viewed as opining that the motion was not brought in compliance with 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(b)(2), the regulation that allows motions "to reopen proceedings for the sole purpose of seeking" withholding of removal under CAT. But if we were to concede that use of the word "sole" in this regulation was sufficient to restrict the Immigration Judge's jurisdiction on remand, that would be entirely inconsistent with Patel. The Board did not address this issue, but seems to have either misread Patel or decided that somehow the regulation is a jurisdictional limitation that trumps Patel. The latter seems unlikely because the Board does rely on Patel as well.
The Board also pointed out in its opinion that Johnson's motion for asylum relief would have been time barred and would have exceeded the permissible number of motions if it had been deemed a motion to reconsider the Board's prior decision. 8 C.F.R. § 3.2(b)(2) (establishing a filing deadline for motions to reconsider and limiting them to one per decision). This argument was not pursued on appeal, but even if it had been, it is not relevant at this stage of the proceedings. These time and numerical limitations do not apply to motions to reopen based on changed country circumstances where the movant shows evidence of changed conditions that "is material and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing." 8 C.F.R. §§ 3.23(b)(3), 3.2(c)(3)(ii).8 The Board did not reach the issue of whether this standard was appropriately met or applied because it based its conclusion on the scope of the Immigration Judge's jurisdiction, as defined by the remand order.
The government similarly pointed out that this was Johnson's second motion to reopen for consideration of asylum based on changed country conditions, and that the Board had denied the previous one. See In re J-J-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 976, 1997 WL 434418 (BIA 1997). But its argument that Johnson was impermissibly readjudicating his asylum claim is not addressed to the Immigration Judge's jurisdiction on remand, and, even if it were, the regulations specifically permit "readjudication" when the requirements for showing changed country conditions are met. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 3.23(b)(3), 3.2(c)(3)(ii). None of this amounts to a regulatory prohibition against the consideration of asylum based on changed country conditions.
Patel states that the Immigration Judge may hear such matters "or" those deemed appropriate in the exercise of the judge's discretion. Presumably this discretion has limits. The Board's decision in In re J-J-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 976, 1997 WL 434418 (BIA 1997), for instance, noted that the Board's power to reopen cases on its own motion was "not meant to be used as a general cure for filing defects or to otherwise circumvent the regulations." Id. at 984. Assuming that a similar standard would apply where the Immigration Judge's discretion, rather than the Board's discretion, is at issue, we do not view the Immigration Judge's consideration of Johnson's motion to run afoul of the regulations. Nor do we view his addressing this issue to be an inappropriate exercise of his discretion, especially given the factual overlap among Johnson's claim for asylum, statutory withholding of deportation, and withholding of deportation under CAT.9
The Board's ruling that the Immigration Judge did not have jurisdiction runs counter to its own dictates in Patel, which contemplates that, in most cases, the Immigration Judge will have broad jurisdiction over the case on remand. This reading of Patel finds additional support from the policy expressed by the Executive Office for Immigration Review in the Board of Immigration Appeals Practice Manual, which states: "Once a case has been remanded to the Immigration Judge, the only motion that can be entertained by the Board is a motion to reconsider the decision to remand. All other motions must be filed with the Immigration Judge." DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW, BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS PRACTICE MANUAL § 5.2(a)(iii)(B) (Nov. 1, 1999). While the manual does not have the weight of a law or regulation and does not affect the Board's jurisdiction, see id. § 1.1(c), or our ruling, we note that the policy it expresses is consistent with the jurisdictional view expressed by the BIA in Patel, and with the result we reach.
If the Board departs from Patel, it should provide a reasonable explanation for its departure. It is possible that it viewed the regulatory language (i.e., "sole purpose") as effecting a limitation on jurisdiction, but that appears to run counter to the jurisdictional scheme reflected in Patel. The Board did not explain its departure and, therefore, its disregard of its own precedents was arbitrary. Because we view its ruling as a departure and because an agency should explain a departure, we will GRANT the petition for review, VACATE the Board's order, and REMAND for further consideration in light of this opinion.
G.A. Res. 39/46 (annex), U.N. GAOR, 39th Sess., Supp. No. 51, at 197, U.N. Doc. A/39/51 (1984)
This provision applies only to aliens like Johnson who were "ordered removed, or whose removal orders became final, before March 22, 1999." 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(b)(2)
We note that we do not need to decide which rules apply because this matter was reviewable under the old rules,see INA § 106, and is not in any of the categories affected by the IIRIRA's transitional or permanent rules, see IIRIRA § 309(c)(4); INA § 242, 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
See Salameda v. INS, 70 F.3d 447, 450 (7th Cir.1995) ("An agency may not abandon an interpretation without an explanation.... Agencies do not have the same freedom as courts to change direction without acknowledging and justifying the change."); Davila-Bardales v. INS, 27 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir.1994) (requiring the BIA to "confront the issue squarely and explain why the departure is reasonable" when it departs from its own precedents); Israel v. INS, 785 F.2d 738, 740 (9th Cir.1986) (the BIA acts arbitrarily when it disregards its own precedents and policies without "reasonable explanation"); Moret v. Karn, 746 F.2d 989, 992 (3d Cir.1984) (the INS abused its discretion where it failed to follow its own internal procedures).
E.g., In re L-V-K-, Int. Dec. 3409, 1999 WL 607159 (BIA Aug. 10, 1999) (dissent) (citing Patel for the proposition that "[o]nce a case is remanded, such a remand, unless specifically limited, is for any appropriate purpose"); CHARLES GORDON ET AL., 1 IMMIGRATION LAW AND PROCEDURE § 3.05[5][b], at 3-55 (Dec. 2000) (citing Patel).
In the same decision, the Board denied another respondent's motion to reopen for relief under § 244 because he failed to make out a prima facie case of eligibility, but this portion of the decision is not relevant here
LinguisticallyPatel's phrase "when this is done" could refer either to "when the case is remanded" or to "when jurisdiction is expressly retained," but logically it refers to the latter. If the Board simply remands without retaining any jurisdiction, it makes no sense to define the scope of its un-retained jurisdiction.
Motions to reopen based on changed country conditions are an exception to the rule that motions to reopen are normally limited to one per alien and must be filed no later than 90 days after the final administrative decisionSee 8 C.F.R. § 3.2(c)(2).
The first two claims require a showing that Johnson's life or freedom would be threatened "on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion," while CAT requires a showing that it is more likely than not that the alien would be tortured upon return to his or her countryCompare INA § 208, 8 U.S.C. § 1158, and former INA § 243(h), 8 U.S.C. § 1253(h) (1995) (current version at INA § 241(b)(3), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(B)(3)), with 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2). The INS itself has recognized the similarity of these types of claims in general: in the interim rule establishing procedures for CAT claims, it noted that the same application form is used for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under CAT because in many cases "the underlying facts supporting these claims will be the same." Regulations Concerning the Convention Against Torture, 64 Fed. Reg. 8478, 8485 (Feb. 19, 1999).