and naturally we can test both of those points are looking for to the opportunity to explain ourselves here today at the outset i'd like to point out that the immigration judge himself rightly observed in the immigration proceedings and for the reasons i can explain further we believe that he was this and needed in essence that we where some affirmative action by the united states government well my understanding of the controlling case here is the board of immigration appeals own decision and a case called matter at again i apologize my spanish is not very strong but in that case what  require any particular affirmative action on the part of the immigration officer and this was not to say further that admission occurs when the inspecting officer communicates to the alien that in that the driver is asked questions the petitioner it's mute in the back seat is not asked me questions does not respond to any questions and is permitted to pass through the board of immigration appeals determined that that is sufficient  description is factually correct yes in fact the immigration judge to his credit i want to point out that i thought that he did an excellent job in developing the record and while i quibble with a lot of the decision that was ultimately rendered as not being adequate he did have an entire section entitled credibility with respect to my client mr bell again and he decided  the respondent testified in a credible fashion and under this court's precedent and bill trend is of all of the ins my understanding is that once credibility has been accorded to the petition is testimony corroborative evidence of january first one thousand nine hundred one he had been out he had just come from africa biased spain and mexico who was out with some friends in the back of the car he falls asleep it's seems very plausible to me that in he was convicted of having possessing an authorized access devices which are our credit cards and he pled guilty to that count which is the possession of an authoress credit immediately and was unable to and then was subsequently put into a custody so he rationed to make payments on the ninety seven thousand dollars in restitution that's right if he ever contained anywhere that he he maintains this is this is a gift no he maintains that he apply for these credit cards and that he is given the credit and that he spent the money as as any of us would when we are when we apply for a good credit card to spend the money and then owe that money and that just as i don't incur any loss or to the rather just as the credit card and personal loss when they lend me the money provided i'm planning on paying them back which is what mr gallag delay in these proceedings to submit us to the court but he's only just recently been released on bond i was able to contact those institutions but you to get back to your point on what the restitution question it's incredibly important in this case because the question of what is restitution was the amount of loss who was a victim i think doesn't necessarily apply here it's not as though mr ballard then went to the bank and store ninety seven thousand dollars he went to credit card companies or credit card companies more appropriately came to him restitution now i take it you did not represent him in that proceeding i did not but you are aware that the rules and procedures involving a sentence including restitution allow the defendant to for the amount and say that doesn't accurately reflect the loss in this case etc and that was not done here not to my knowledge and vote at no time in the criminal proceeding or any time after it w judgment was entered as your client ever said that ninety seven thousand dollars does not accurately reflect victim loss he said it in this proceeding but he never said it in the criminal proceeding right criminal proceeding he's concerned about the charges that are against him and what sort of time might be sentences you might be sentenced to and when someone says do you acknowledge that you owe these credit card companies this money ninety seven thousand dollars that money i guess they lost that money not knowing that this would necessarily come up in his immigration proceedings when i was arrested he had sixteen critic or do you think he was charged with fifteen i think he had sixteen best made of that at one time he had thirty credit cards or more here but at the outset let me point out that the government neither the immigration judge nor the board of immigration appeals mentions this second charge of moral turpitude in their decisions and it's my discretion to affirmative action it was never made which is from mario somewhere on the ins he agreed that his plea agreement accurately stated his conduct no we contest that  because we don't have any contested in the criminal proceeding i don't think so and doesn't the plea agreement say that he used different names different dates of births non existent employer information and different parents names in fraudulent lee during the criminal proceeding that it was accurate he had to do to convince the court to accept this plea but we don't know necessarily what the contents are in the absence of someone you know having something before them that they read and sign and understand want to say sometimes i could place thank you thank you we'll hear from the government at the time involving moral turpitude regarding the crime involving moral turpitude counsel or there was never a finding on that issue that's incorrect the order of the immigration judge on the last page firings that the the credit card statute under which the petitioner was convicted requires fraud as an element so fraud has been considered fundamentally i'm sorry your honor i don't understand your reference to referring to the other document all in the order i'm sorry yes absolutely your honor if a court says that  because he was not admitted or parole the additional charge alleged at page nine sixteen that he is removable on the grounds that he was convicted of a crime involving for the first time the fact that it was one sorry had it been raised at trial perhaps there would have been some effort by the trial attorney at least given the option to seek a signed copy that where he can we do what you're asking us to do when it wasn't even raised to the board i think that it would seem to make sense to me that the board of immigration  immigration judge in deciding on these two charges in a twenty two page opinion would make stumm reference to fifty percent of the charges that are made against me but for th any determination whatsoever waiting for you to explain to the panel how it is we could review something about the board of immigration appeals that wasn't even raised to them something they did not do just to make an analogy to criminal law if somebody charges you in a law in the elegies are going to help you here counsel you have some case law that says we can do that i don't petitioner took somebody else the social security number and used it for nineteen years and this court said that that does not constitute a crime involving moral turpitude and in briefing counsel points out that congress intended to got credit cards and otherwise lawful conduct so we think that that is persuasive and our case and with respect to the question of the aggravated felony we vigorously dispute that i noticed in my time is up would you like to hear anything further on that or i think we're fully informed by virtue of your briefs and your arguments we thank you for your argument i think both sides for their argument in the case just argue will be submitted for decision