ask them whether they have any questions to protect cancel for our turn now to judge hears i have no question thank you judge walker i have no question issue this is really a factual dispute and it must be reviewed under the highly deferential substantial evidence standard the government proved that mr audi was illegally present based on his own admission that he's a jamaican citizen hearings held on that issue before the immigration judge the entire time mr audi was represented very competently by the brooklyn defender services the i j a granted for continuances to flesh out his evidence despite the fact that mr audi was detained this apparently the the tactical decision was made not to have him go into the consulate or embassy down in jamaica in order to provide testimony on a competent telephone line but  rather his counsel chose to provide a cell phone number that was was frankly insufficient to even conduct a hearing and then we go away because some of the testimony out he was impeached based on some of his removal testimony and  at that point the government moved on you know we have the testimony of his purported mother a woman was a woman known as pansy cohen who submitted various of the davis but refused to come in and testify in person or provide evidence to confirm her identity in fact when the department of homeland security when a name in credit search on this individual nothing appeared that indicates that this individual likely illegally entered the country without instruction why is that important why is that critical here it's critical because this entire issue turns on aki perry and his burden of proving that he in fact entered at j f k airport in a lawful passion with inspection there's no direct evidence record that that occurred the individual with whom he allegedly traveled a woman named janet there's there's no evidence directly from her there's no white evidence prior to the case audi's present but it doesn't demonstrate his burden of proof which is time place and manner of entry everything about that is speculation from people who were not in fact present when he allegedly entered the country therefore th that there is not substantial evidence to overturn the agency's decision now with respect to the crime involving moral turpitude based on mr audi's possession of stolen property conviction the court's precedent in in the two thousand see enter requirement from that of larceny possession of stolen property enter requirements merely shows the knowledge that the items are stolen it does not have in any way a knowledge requirement to show that there you distinguish those cases and continued long line of presidents showing that receipt of stolen property is distinct in its knowledge requirements and therefore the board the not in any way error in finding  relying on this court's president precedent in michelle and its recent presidents a matter of a matter of old age and lingers to find that mr all those convictions for possession of stolen property constituted a crime involving moral  i look forward into the court's questions thanks very much judge karen no questions thank you judge walker yes i have one question yes he was he was admitted and did not come in with his mother but he came in with this woman janet and and he she she had every right to come in and brought him with her brought her in with  make sure that we're on the set all of the same page if you if you did have a straight if you were to demonstrate that you argue of course he hasn't demonstrated a valid valid entry then the remedy would have to be termination of the proceedings right because the the right path the path that would be available were he admitted was not charged yeah it would it would be terminations of that demonstrated which is clearly did not in clearly there's no substantial evidence that would compel a finding that he demonstrated it procedurally valid entry then that charge would in fact not apply in this instance but again i mean but scant evidence that issue here does nothing other than you know possibly suggest another alternative theory of the case and there's you know people evidence to support the finding that the agency it's it's one step too far the information apparently for from what is in the record indicates that mr audi's mother pansy cohen who refused to come in and testify and be cross examined  about her the department taking the position that she would not as to as to whether or not they would pursue a case against her if she came  immunity based upon her for coming in and she wouldn't be she wouldn't be pursued or prosecuted but then changed changed his position well the department initially negotiations with mr audi's counsel asked for additional information to actually figure out who this person in fact is and we see her name appear in a couple of medical records but there's zero name search for her how did she get into this country she's not even in isis records in any in any way if you were to ever have been in or the country illegally or appeared presented herself she would have been in those records they were on a credit search of her and nothing  of this declaration they ultimately would through the declaration at the end so we have clearly somebody who's trying to hide something the entire time it's also incredibly bizarre that the whole story is that centrally kidnaps mr audi and takes him to new york and then at some point there after live till one appears in the united states without any records be ever inspected and that's really what's at issue here is how  actually arrive in the united states if he came illegally without instruction with his mother which is possible and there's there was no effort d to show the bat didn't in fact happen we just the agency reaches this decision then about point all the sudden the charges council comes back and says oh well now ms cohen has additional information on janet which information has clearly been available throughout this entire proceeding it was within her knowledge and as well as mr obvious others knowledge when this was his girlfriend he clearly knew what her last name was and possibly her birthday and he lived with this person all that information was previously discoverable so in the context in which this quote new information was raise which was a motion to reopen reconsider all of that information could have previously been brought out with very very modicum of due diligence instead it magically appears after the fact and after all these hearings in continuances were entered therefore when the agency looked at that motion to reopen reconsider it found that this information could have easily been been  prior to that and when this court reviews that decision whether to reopen reconsider it does so under the abuse of discretion standard in clearly knowledge that well in hand of both mr adi's father and his mother regarding the identity and details of the identity of this mysterious janet woman if she ever existed because there's no physical evidence in the record to show that she fact existed at all all of that information was available at the time of the where it was drug paraphernalia and it included some some language with respect to relating to federal schedules where the state drug schedule was over broad based on the better all schedule no other words the cans of schedule is is materially different and legally distinct from that of larceny wisely requires the intent to permanently deprive whereas possession of stolen property requires knowledge that the items are stolen and the new york sunni versus possession of stolen property persuaders is theoretically possible for a person to possess the mental state required for guilt a grand larceny in the rd degree and at the same time lack the mental state necessary for the guilt  criminal possession of stolen property in the rd degree this clearly shows that post luly the new york state new york state courts continue to believe that there is a materially just didn't see enter requirement between those two effectively done the cross examination that it never did thirdly your honor the the government says they were for hearing but not correct there was only certain outcome what happens for example the passenger of a car would be run out of the country put inventing a crime involving moral purpose you even if you didn't intend to steal the car whereas the driver who didn't want to steal a car would be putting