cancellation removal to overarching themes in this case first is the portability congress to set a high bar for establishing the portability of a lawfully admitted alien that standard is clear and convincing evidence for the government must establish a conviction congress requires that the documents be authenticated in a specific way that ensures reliability at this wasn't done here mr sinatra has his entitle to keep his green card and stay with his family basis for the finding of the portability articulated by the board and that is they look at the documents alone and that's what the board says the documents alone but the records of conviction sufficed to prove that a conviction for child abuse occurred moreover his admissions establish the fact that a conviction occurred but courts have established that the nature of the conviction must be established by a record of conviction that is specific documents to support the conviction this is because it's not what a person did that makes them deportable but what section of the law he was convicted of having violated for example into copley the defendant the defendant admitted that the assault victim was his wife that didn't necessarily make it a domestic violence conviction the government argues the government appears to concede that the authentic asian requirements for electronic transmitted conviction documents have not been static but it argues that the language of a u s c twelve twenty nine a and then it's i think some three  the requirements are set out the government says well you're trying to read the word again shall be admissible only how do you respond the government's argument specifically in that section of the statute the heading for example is burden of proof and the requirement is a conjunctive requirement it's not an either or requirement the electronic records in order to establish an order to establish some initial reliability have to be certified by both the transmitting person that's that's the argument but congress is very specific you that that the electronic dawkins need to be certified by both the transmitting and receiving party the respect of the government or the stop time wills are interactive that's correct but those cases only apply to the issues of charging documents where congress we have the transitional rules of the ira ira and the subsequent legislation what was explicit in other words time upset those settled expectations and applying saints here you got a minute and forty inspections and if there are no further questions i'm going to submit on that one we have from the government judging from the questions from judge lester that i may have argued too many alternatives in the brief let me make it clear the government does not concede and the board found that the conviction documents in this case were properly certified if you look at page one thirty two of the record there is a long fax they contain two conviction records and at the end of the second conviction record there is a certification signed by an s officer saying i got this thing by fax and if you look at the bottom of the fax the fax numbers are number consecutively and it includes both conviction records but as we sort of voted both ends correct if you look at the bottom of each record there is a sort of there's a handwritten certification by the court officer saying that i sent this to the ins that's on an earlier page one twenty seven for example for the one thousand nine hundred three conviction so initially it is not that it is the position of the of the government that this was in fact properly certified to give me the certification of the  originating at page one twenty my notes they want twenty seven and i believe that a handwritten note ation at the bottom of the one nine hundred ninety three conviction  certainly so he was removable by the child abuse conviction alone but there are two grounds there were two grounds removed realty one was the child abuse conviction alone and the other was the child abuse conviction and the aggravated assault as a cumulative two crimes involving moral turpitude and why as the hundred ninety three conviction for child abuse that took place within five years of his admission as a temporary resident what's more it took place within three within five years of his nine hundred ninety admission as a lawful permanent resident the statute requires th five year starts to accumulate at the time of your admission as a lawful permanent resident he only had two and a half years in between the commission which was doing his mission after that but that's the running of the time that's the step that's the sense right but i just wanted to clarify that because that wasn't clear in the prior in but in your view and i may have to go back and make sure i got this sorted out properly in my head if this document is properly certified at both ends both sending and receiving that's enough to support the removal order absolutely that completely wipes out his argument as a matter of fact now let me point to the matter of law statutory section that's been quoted here is immediately followed by another such story section in actually to look at the regulations if you look at the regulations the regulations that section one thousand and three point forty one that's that section that talks about the electronic circuit cation how it is that a fax needs to be certified is immediately followed by a section that says any other evidence that reasonably indicates the existence of a criminal conviction may be convictions so they said look if it meets these criteria it's absolutely it's going to be admissible if it doesn't meet these criteria it may still be admissible if it meets the due process of reasonability standard and that's what you see incorporated in the regulations at one thousand and three point forty one d so the position of the government is first of all as the board found it was properly certified and secondly even if it wasn't properly certified it was sufficient to meet the standards for admissibility and third all of the immigration judge and the third argument is with regard to cancellation of removal which is the only thing that was before the court before the immigration court because he had conceded remove ability the only thing that was before the immigration court was something that he needed to prove removable how do you respond the same here argument because seems to me that his having that brings this absolutely when the four corners are saying here if the only question was whether or not he was eligible for relief under two twelve  this would work although he wouldn't meet the time he would would meet the time limit requirements as this court held in lower torahs and other courts and other courts upheld when congress eliminated suspension of removal as a possible relief and replaced it with cancellation of removal congress was entitled to say when you're coming to us looking for this one a relief if you've had a conviction any time that that meets these criteria any time in the past you're not going to be eligible for this new form of really doesn't get you out from under st cyr because the writ of st serious that's an impermissible retroactive application if the person at the time he pleads guilty has no emotion whatsoever that it will have this adverse consequence and he has given up his right to go to trial in return for pleading guilty without having any understanding of the adverse consequences perhaps that's sincere in that situation you're talking about substantive eligibility for the original relief in this or in this situation you're talking about a form of relief that wasn't even possible at the time it's a brand new form or belief and totally different culture brand of formerly it's more restrictive what he could have had at that time it's both more restrictive and more it's totally new it's totally new with the argument substantive relief the question in this case is whether the soft time rule which was in fact and acted to apply to cancellation should apply to cancellation or whether the rules regarding st cyr and two twelve c should consequential guilty plea this is really and we're requesting to receive the substantive form of relief weaver of inadmissibility under teach well see and we were attempting to apply the stop time rule to the relief at the broader reasoning  cyr at least as i read it is that if someone pleads guilty thereby giving up his right to go to trial it's an impermissible retroactive application of adverse consequences later of congress later decides that i'm going to do something bad to you you had no when the when the congress established cancellation of removal for the first time it was a new formerly it was not the old form of relief that he might have been eligible before and in doing that congress is entitled to establish  i believe it's happened before but i can't tell you off the top of my head cancellation that if you've had a two twelve c waiver you can't get cancellation at the time congress was repealing to twelve c so the assumption of congress was you're never ever going to be able to get it can't do it all see where ever again so we don't need to deal with the concept of a simultaneous waiver remember that until the court until st cyr jews will see wasn't available anymore to any aliens after a year or so congress was saying look we're wiping out to school see it'll never happen again and if you've ever had it before you g anyway well and more importantly the board itself also says that the the documents were properly certified by an immigration official does not say that they were properly certified by the by the transmitting official board a case specifically so so hernandez sosa hernandez stands for the proposition that if you get you can get two if you're independently eligible for one and the grant of the first