in admitting that he was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude now whether he should have admitted that or not is not relevant anymore he admits that and so we can't review those unless there is a constitutional question or a question of law and i'm not sure what counts as that under the cases you as you presented it this is not a deferral of removal case under the convention against torture really want to stress that first of all the law has drawn a distinction between the very narrow set of circumstances in which deferral of removal was possible we talked about and the one juror case and so on and situations where somebody is seeking withholding of remove all or other things and there is just a very narrow set of circumstances says the government points out that would allow all sort of a safety valve me united states is a part of the convention against torture we don't send people back to countries where they're going to be tortured if that can be proven and so it's a little bit of a safety valve but in the ordinary withholding of removal situation you don't need that safety now because you have the regular processes that are available and we've never if if you're arguing for is to extend all of the poor does not own or shall have jurisdiction to review any final order for move all against an alien who is removable by reason of having committed and so on and so on you know eleven eighty two a for crimes of moral t so that's no jurisdiction and there is the only exception that exists is the capital d exception for constitutional questions and questions of law and you haven't presented one  think about these things because under the facts that have been presented it's very hard for me to see the kind of government involvement with the kind of activities that count as torture under the convention against torture as having gone on he certainly didn't want to cooperate with these groups are off key because whoever they were th terms that the law has because frankly it's hard for me to think of any crime that makes one worthy you know in so if you've committed a crime period there's already a problem with you unless it's court in fact in his reply brief he specifically states that he's not challenging the underlying order removal on these only challenging the agency's weighing of factors and factual conclusions that he did not meet his burdens h c so did the government make anything much in this case of the fact that since if i'm remembering two thousand and seven bulgaria has been a member of the european union and obviously it's been part of the council of europe and subject to the strasburg court and clear they're not relying on past persecution but the events that triggered his concerns about going back are all in the mid ninety's right yes your honor and when he was asked about the inclusion of bulgaria in the european union and whether or not he would able  able to move to another area and work in another european union i believe his responses were that he he he did not think that he could do so but he hadn't really looked into it and when he asked his parents about it they just said that he  are either refuted by the record or already resolved by this court's precedent in the record first the board's entitle to the presumption of regularity that it considered all of the evidence in the case and for the burden of demonstrating  you can see did not do so and the agencies decisions in this case included references several country conditions reports or notations about one one of those reports typically stated that not all ro some point you know whether this is still the case or not the record who knows but were inserted into the local police departments were actually part of the government yes sure i know there is some evidence of that  it's the two thousand and eleven state department report indicated that the bulgarian government has been actively battling see a public sentiment against the roma has been creating housing programs for the roma and in fact the police recently protected a romani crime boss f will ask want to find out the standard finding that all the money have to be subject to apply that in practice in order for the father and practice claim to come into play is not supported by the law ok