just forced my argument i think in the best i can in my brief but i will say this the appears to me that the government's main argument is that there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove that that regard and that is this i didn't do that already decided to transportation the controlled substance was an aggravated felony or to go gratian appeals had already determined that they had with on that that finding government i think was saying we should give more evidence from the court record other than the complaint in the abstract is judgment and there may or may not be additional evidence in the court record of his conviction that said why we would be do that since they'd already decided that this particular fence transportation specifically transportation of a controlled substance was a drug trafficking aggravated why would you be pointless and i think really that that's the only argument that the government has in this case and i have to say just a personal note is the most disturbing case i've ever had i just  just seems so obvious that someone at least is simply trying to have him removed whatever argument is necessary to do that but i will say also that  as far as i can tell the law of the case argument that i made is unique i didn't find it anywhere in any board of immigration appeals cases any immigration cases i really looked but couldn't find it but i will say that i believe it probably comes under the  due process violation in this case certainly i think if you look at what the board of immigration appeals did there's a real question about their impartiality in the neutrality and that is the due process issue first in the first decision board of immigration appeals made on the government's appeal of the judges granted cancelation they found first of all by necessary implication that he had been specifically convicted of transportation of a controlled substance even though that code section includes other possible offenses that's what the government argued that's what the be found so that they made a finding there that he had by necessary implication that the government had proven being by clear and convincing evidence that he had been convicted of transportation of a controlled substance on the second appeal and ironically the government argued that he didn't have a right to the second appeal the government continued are you transportation transportation of a controlled substance is a trafficking offense an aggravated felony under these circumstances because he said it was he testified to the immigration judge they just said well his argument is that we don't know what he was convicted of it's just this code section and there are several of things is that he could be guilty of all of this code section but he's easy saying well you can't tell oh record immigration law for an offense to be a drug trafficking offense has to be punishable under the controlled substances act or one of the other federal acts and transportation isn't punishable under a controlled federal controlled behind the conviction and look to those statements that he made in front of the immigration judge if that's what the case law said that would be easy stuff that would be a transportation aggravated felony drug trafficking offense but there is absolutely no case that says under no change in fact or the law between this first decision and it's ultimately decision and it simply without stating that was withdrawing its earlier factual finding or legal conclusion or anything else did something looking at aggravated felony for purposes of movability and in the sense in context you can't look beyond the conviction documents but there is no face so you can do that is for right right right so so we have to disregard has to establish that statute that that component of the of the statute and he but i think the problem with your argument is that every time that we've gotten into any of these constructions under a taylor the taylor analysis is that the supreme court has been very clear that we're not in any context there is no context in which they supported an independent hearing to determine what happened in the conviction what that what they say is we don't want these we don't wa collateral litigation we don't want to have people go back and try to prove what what what happened what with this conviction we don't need a second trial so we used judicially on a small dark in this now there are so obviously one can take different views of now he comes in after he's found a movable for controlled substance violation and and wants to get cancellation of removal and if he's seeking relief and this is the regulation that says if the evidence indicates that one or more grounds for mandatory denial of relief may apply documents that you can count this i mean what you're saying is if the regulation of as you interpret it means that he's got to put on evidence as to what happened i think that's just directly contrary to what turns courts told us to do visible but that doesn't that doesn't necessarily need his burden of proof you have to prove that he was not an aggravated felony if these documents don't prove that yes they don't prove that it's not it may be fifty fifty but is it fifty one percent approv shepherd and say in this case we should take cognizance of the evidence which is specifically not cognize of well under those cases because of this regulation of  or otherwise but on a global basis what's true is that his book we don't want collateral litigation about what happened twenty years ago and we don't want to have anybody have to prove it's which is fair to the government of fair would the judge ever want to give him a cancellation but testifying about what he did doesn't necessarily mean that that is the convent that the superior court rendered its  different question out right now but one fact is that kind of what happened that never happened anywhere at all just one point i think the complaint in the abstract and judgment together are conclusive evidence that he was convicted only of complaints come before this court but i don't think they could be considered tracking that you like this track and if that's true and i took that's fast in question i didn't want to although it's unusual i didn't want i wanted to give you an opportunity to respond t