and one thing you know is in the couple injury cases even though it sounds extremely serious from what the pre sentence report indicated he did get the low and the two three four term which in california is what he's looking at he got the low end of two years in california ron is very brod and in his case it was people were loading tiles from our building into the back of his truck and he was at that time and that was what he was convicted  ties and so on from the estranged us there isn't anything in the record no the only indication from his wife is in the pre sentence report itself where she indicates at the time court my name is christopher alexander i'm here representing the united states as indicated by the court the first main issue is whether or not the deportation challenge should have been successful in the district and one of the questions that the court had was regarding what actually took place for the corporal injured spouse is indicated in this present report of page six what had occurred is that the wife was treated for first second the wife actually yelled for her eight year old daughter called the police and the defendant ripped phone off of the wall this is the type of crime of violence that the defendant committed in order to get himself removed from the united states and this is information that the immigration judge have at the time that he ruled that this person should not remain in the united states any longer in addition to that this person had also been convicted of two other united states while he was in the united states starting at the age of twenty to thirty k to find the defendant but also he had been in and out of the country previously however his first conviction took place at the age of thirty so during that time period he had maybe about eight years in which he hadn't actually been convicted of a crime after his first conviction about the age of thirty he continued to have criminal contacts until you know finally his most recent conviction for violation of thirteen twenty six now at the time you feel thing to consider is that he was given the opportunity to be out of the country but still never left back but as for  whether or not the immigration judge had an opportunity considered america became the immigration judge handed this information concerning the park evictions before and now the immigration judge ruled that this person should be excluded and contained within the record at ninety nine the notice to notice of appeal to find specific instances of that he is appealing but in addition to that he goes through and provides a very lengthy detailed didn't consider it under two twelve a date they have the opportunity to consider whether or not he should be removed from the united states and they considered his argument as to the the prejudice he would suffer as a result of being very clear i thought that because of the deep bass they were not going under two twelve thirty at that point well they may want the next step further and they went to they said in particular they noted that the additional element was there that he'd been convicted of an aggravated assault for the first line and that they considered all of the arguments that were made there were a series of ten separate things that were listed in the nose to maybe i just don't understand it to twelve t isn't available then what's the provision under which they could decline to order him removed but what they were saying is that we find that there is nothing that you've argued that would give you relief in particular looking at your i read of salim which was the crime of violence you're not eligible for release so what you're telling me his only merit based on the fact that you presented to us then they went to a particular element and said this is one of the reasons why we're denying we're denying it because you did not numerous arguments that one of the arguments was a two twelve c argument he didn't make it he put he put the factors there but never made the argument will make the argument is being made myers we're all putting the facts for the court i think it might be useful for read and really look at from one thousand nine to five what what was actually possible now the district court had an opportunity to review all the information that was before i had an opportunity to review the deportation proceedings of discretion well i would say that the the court could review it with an elbow we would argue that that would be a higher standard because it's a court did did make that analysis and in particular looked at the declarations that were end the court did have an opportunity to review all this information going through the court looked at whether or not the defendant had a prior work history and for example his work of three is detailed in the presen point not being regularly employed if you have the military history the evidence of hardship to the family it's not clear as to what hardship they actually suffered we have the statements by the daughters as to what actually occurred but even the daughter statement as to what status the father has is unclear because the daughters of this he was deported in one thousand nine hundred five and we all know that that's not what happened in one thousand and five he was in custody as a result of