mexico held that mr martinez is admission to have used marijuana in mexico without more was sufficient to place him into one of those  exceptions for having engaged in illegal activity after having departed from the united states however there was no showing in the case that using or possessing marijuana in mexico was illegal i can't i don't know what the law is in mexico and i don't think that that any of us without any evidence of what the law is and mexico can just assume that what mr martinez did in mexico was illegal that was the only basis for finding that mr martinez wasn't arriving alien subject to it in this ability proceedings so i want to ask you about that i've i've tried to understand what the basis for the a s holding was and i think i read it your way where it says that the respondents emitted use of marijuana in mexico was sufficient without more to trigger the exception set forth in that section of the act is there any other part of the holding that i'm missing that would suggest it was for any other reason why that the i can't was inclusion or was a purely the use of marijuana in mexico that was the or that's the only thing in the order your honor that would that  and say that that also may have been because there was marijuana found in the vehicle that my client was driving but it's very clear under the cases that i cited in my opening brief we have to rely on what the board says we can't you know make or supplement their holding with suppositions of what they might have relied on it's very clear in that as you say your honor and the board's order that the permits l p r to be treated as an applicant for admission if there's evidence to think gaged an illegal activity after having departed from the united states correct right so i'm just so why is the b i he's holding in error in light of the fact that marijuana use is a violation of s law but wouldn't it and your honor on the jurisdiction where the person is you know my client if the government is saying that my client engaged in illegal activity  used in colorado and came back to california but that he prosecuted california isn't it governed by u s law i mean as some trying to figure out so if you went to your saying it's ok to go down to mexico and have marijuana and smoke marijuana any time you want you're in as an l p r because if the n b a doesn't specifically say that that that's the reason i think it just seems like we're supposed to read it in a way that makes sense i understand that they weren't not specific and clear and they could have been much more clear i'm just wondering if it's if it's enough the what they said here in light of the fact that the violation of a federal law includes misdemeanor offense of marijuana well guzman martinez which specifically deals with the illegal activity at the port of entry and so i think that the board in a roundabout way was getting to what actually transpired the roundabout way it is safe in this instance is was in middle usage is it minute usage in possession at the border and he states that he started he used the marijuana while in line to continue to have the marijuana all up until the point that he got to the inspection that's when i was discovered by the border patrol so i think the board if it in that regard was that it use the terminology the petitioner and self use on the border certainly miss certainly could have been more specific in what it was talking about but i don't think that it's that ultimately the board's conclusion that i tell you that they had the opportunity also be i a did to cite to a thirteen c five correct and they didn't which would have been specifically you know because he violated drug laws basically in the united states or you know and they didn't do that that's correct and i think that the board's issue in this case was that they were addressing the petitioners claim as the petitioner presented it but he presented everything i mean he said that he had three ounces of marijuana it made it easy marijuana daily for the last several days if not weeks and with all of that they chose the language he was violating for possession of drugs in mexico or whatever the language was using that he said to mexico and they had so many other ways and i understand you're in a tough spot here but aren't we governed by the case law that says that they're supposed to be sufficiently clear in their in their bases i believe so you're right and if the court feels that the board the activity at the border where he was found with drugs in his possession coupled with the fact that he had been using drugs even throughout his proceedings themselves and was lying about the ideas and everything but ability finding regarding that so it was just kind of  circumstances that given the action at the border coupled with his his own behavior during the proceedings that that was something that was bound to be a negative factor in determining whether or not he wanted discretion in this case