is not supported by substantial evidence based mcpharlin three reasons first the board failed to engage in any factual analysis regarding the petitioners intent in providing that fosse testimony second the immigration judge was in the best position to determine petitioners credibility regarding his intent and lastly the record is riddled with confusing and incomplete testimony that does not provide a substantial basis for supporting the b s decision first your honor whether the applicant has subjective intent to deceive and provide false information in order to obtain immigration benefit is a question of fact unless the petitioner has the subjective intent the board was not in the position to find the petition lacks the good moral character required for purposes of removal this court another step found that where the misrepresentations are made for reasons other than an intent to deceive but for shame faulty memory misinterpretation of a question or innocent mistake that those reasons do not preclude a finding of good moral character within the context of cancellation of normal in this particular case the court's decision is in error and it's an error for two reasons one the factual basis the bor provides and this decision is incorrect first the board essay that petitioner provided false information regarding his arrest and in fact he had been arrested at one time and this is true initially petitioner provided they have been arrested one time for driving under the influence of alcohol however before a rap she counsel at that point government counsel had not been disclosed that she had an early expired two year old rap sheet that contradicted the petitioners testimony regarding his arrest when one probably are the worst decision is an error because the statement of the decision is incomplete and is inaccurate the broken by that the position was false testimony is not a tally of the circumstances factor but rather an absolute disqualifier to demonstrating good moral character and that is true as long as the false information was provided with the subjective intent to receive and obtain an immigration benefit in this case the immigration judge as noted by the board did provide that the judge gave petitioner deference to his testimony and did not find that he had provided false information with that intent to deceive because he was ashamed and that's the one reason cited by the board but the boy in addressing that point fails to decide to ted to analyze why that would be insufficient record and in this case the record contains testimony from the petitioner that the immigration judge used in reaching her conclusion regarding his credibility about his intent and providing that false information and so therefore the court although the this court is going to look at the  find that he had provided that information for the purpose of obtaining an immigration benefit for example she noted his demeanor as part of the reasons she noted they had a very heavy tongan accent that he had a very limited fluency in english that he was ashamed and confused that he thought that obtaining an immigration benefit the court relies heavily on the demeanor on his limited language skills relies heavily on his background on his record in the setting and making that credibility finding about what was the reason for the phos information provided by the petition accept this court and the immigration if we referring to other cases where this court has found that there may be other reasons for inconsistency and inaccuracies in the testimony when the immigration judge talks about the person being a shame and confused those are other reasons provided in other cases by the supreme court where the court found that those may be reasons to excuse false testimony in this particular context and so although the court doesn't provide the term subjective untaet for another purpose clearly these reasons  wording used by the immigration judge is making clear reference to these decisions issued by this court in other cases involving fos testimony where the issue becomes whether the petition had the intent to deceive or not and for those reasons rather and she did not and that's what the board was getting at when it said that this disqualifier one o one at six providing false testimony for the purposes of pain immigration benefits is not a totality of the circumstances test it's an absolute disqualif either the alien provided false testimony to try to tan immigration benefit or he did not the immigration judge decision made general that you found them credible she did your honor but her decision reads as if she's actually making a catchall determination that was i mean she notes that he was confused that he thought that maybe once he served his sentences the convictions had been dismissed but that is concluded unsupported by the record ok but now we're back to the same place that's what they  not disclosing the convictions is that you thought that once you served the sentence he was done and we can forget about him that's all the recordset the only reason that elian gets we would submit that's a completely implausible reason i mean records convictions are not dismissed alien provided the false testimony for purposes of attaining the benefit cancellation relief that's the reason we doesn't disclose the convictions i mean criminal actions are very pertinent to cancellation applications because certain convictions are automatic disqualifiers and even if they're not automatic disqualifier so re in the determination of whether or not they are and deserving of relief in the upsides of discretion here in his application he denied ever having been arrested convicted fined or imprisoned for any offense and interject a question as your honor procedure for sake of argument that we agree with your friend on the other side of the case substantial evidence doesn't for giving the false testimony because there was an agreement the response testimony that it could remand back to be a to make specific findings regarding on but we would argue that that is not necessary in this case because the case law supports the board's finding that the would be most appropriate in this case i like to cite to the record with regards to the taking of the oath regarding the contents of the application when the immigration judge in this case asked the petitioner on his wife about the contents of the application the record does not provide t duis these crimes are not climbs involving moral turpitude so these crimes per se will not have the squad all five the petitioner from receiving cancellation of removal of all these crimes do go to the issue of discretion there were many other multiple favorable factors in favor of the petitioner in this case that would have outweighed any adverse finding on the part of the immigration judge with regards to credibility moreover all the petitioner doesn't use the word shown in his testimony he does provide other information beyond the fact that he was confused about his nine hundred ninety two conviction director provides numerous places that he tries to forget about his mistakes that are sort of mine is to look forward to  petition ago false testimony for the purpose of obtaining an immigration benefit that is a complete disqualifying we would concede that however this record does not show that the board is decision on that finding and for those reasons