competency finding that happened with out a psychological evaluation a year later we had one that documented that mr florists had cognitive decline from  the motion to reopen the b i claimed it when it reconsider the concept hearing because a year later the i j a had found him competent may i ask that really threshold question here and that relates to exhausti the government's brief in a footnote but i note the difference of course between admissibility and in terms of an alien seeking admission and then  inadmissibility and say that the seeking admission was not exhausted and nothing was responded to in the reply brief on that why wouldn't we deem that perhaps we're crossing paths and not speaking on and the same terms here in terms of your answer so i'm asking really about the argument that the admission as an wrongfully speculated that she could not have been impacted your go from that to find that without evidence calderon rodriguez is required to be sent back for a new competency hearing equally at least whether is basically petitioners basically arguing that his attorney who defended the immigration judge because keep in mind that he wanted for the recreation judge the immigration judge granted him cancellation of removal and he was goin ability he presented hundreds of pages of evidence in support of his theory that he wasn't in admissible and also in support of this application group of relief and then the immigration judge granted his outlook ation so that's the postur now in hindsight after the board reversed he now wishes that he had said oh i my hearing was fundamentally unfair i didn't have to process but those are all hindsight arguments as to why his attorney should have argued on appeal let me let me ask you on the exhaustion question because i'm not sure that his counsel actually engaged with my distinction between an alien seeking mission an applicant for a mission under section eleven or one i believe it's a thirteen or some c thirteen but under the definition section of the aisle and that statute he didn't think age with that there are no that the judge found true allegation five in the notice to appear which is the allegation that he did know about the airline marijuana so there's no ambiguity in the immigration judges findings of removed ability immigration judge knew that it was  decision of do i credit his claim that he didn't know about it or do i find that he did know about it in the immigration judge found true yeah allegation that he did know about it but there's no way does that there's no explicit find out the immigration judge explicitly found that true now what we don't have is the immigration judge explicitly saying they are for having found that he knew about it i find that he's not credible in his  we don't have an adverse credibility i mean isn't it a problem to have sort of check the box justice you know there's no record at all just the statement of true based on an allegation we don't know what was considered we don't know what connections such a fundamental after this this type of dispute because what goes on at the border people do become unwittingly do two things they do have a situation where a family member there refers to the grounds into twelve and the reason to believe is one of those grounds that it's incompetent wrestled with that difference between has committed and reason to believe and it came out with the determination that the main factual issue is the reasonable even the court can still consider that but if the court finds that substantial evidence supports the reason to believe determination then the jurisdictional form would be triggered now keep in mind of course that that's under the know mostly versus the circumstantial evidence that he was the owner and only driver of the car that he never laundered out that it had hidden compartments built into it where he had a very large quantity over  hundred pounds of marijuana and it's just circumstantial evidence so i agree with you that if the immigration judge found that he did not know as a fact then they couldn't sustain the charge of inadmissibility but immigration judge this stage does the record compel the conclusion that he lacked knowledge and it really is it's just his word against the circumstantial evidence and it is a tricky case but it's not movability and application for relief that his application for relief was granted so while he subsequently was found to have dementia and that's a tough diagnosis that doesn't show so i don't want to start on one now i mean it appears there have there is there are a lot of questions but we also have extensive briefing on everything so it appears there's no further questions ok thank you thank you