bradley has now i'm in the united states practically thirty years of his life most his life has been spent the united states married father of three children born the united states his father himself is a permanent resident of the united states mr florence was placed in  proceedings in two thousand and twelve as a result of being detained at the border pursuant to that he apply for a temper relief known as cancellation of removal the court is aware of what cancellation rule entails i'll just go over to the quick synopsis of an issue of choirs that you prove you've been there for ten years but you don't have a certain criminal background you have family members who are dependent upon you to stay and you've married the relief sought in this case in this particular case the issue before the says you cannot be outside of the united states for ninety days four hundred eighty days in the aggregate of death ten year period of time what our position is is that the core erred and the board of immigration in affirming that this issue erred by putting the burden on mr and driving to prove a negative he had to prove that he's been here for the whole ten years consistently for all that period of time that's not what this report requires and that's not what's required in the board of immigrations what's required is once mr drafty places his case forward says i have the ten year period it's the government's burden to come up with proof that he is missing a period of time within that ten years either a ninety one period of time or hundred eighty one disagreed with that said that shouldn't be done the burden is on the government to prove first the negative and the mr and bridey or there are any different to address that issue in this particular case there's an issue about when he was detained or when to thirteen and i to thirteen as i guess the question that a police report that's generated by the immigration service there's no witnesses presented to it test what that says even though this court in the board of immigration has found those  documents are generally reliable in this particular case the burden should have been on the government to present some kind of evidence once mr dry presented his case the court should have pre term anita's case let the case progressed and the government would come forth with it with its evidence and then we can challenge that evidence in a more effective way when he presented the evidence this kind of all of this like slipped in from cross examination and so forth but even if we take the two i thirteen as being evidence in this case the mr standard keeping a diary every time so forth and so forth but he's very consistent saying i was here in march of of two thousand and twelve as bullshit april two thousand and twelve he can consistently stated that the right to thirteen  he was the cop cross the border on april third however this report if if it's true and accurate it was dated april fifth and it in the counter occurred on april fifth which couldn't be the case because if you was crossing the border and people fifty then how do they put the database both third in there so there is an inconsistency in the eye to thirteen is it enough to blow it completely out of water no but it's enough to bring doubt into the that question and it requires a more eviden hearing to address that issue we must remember this and dr has been here for thirty years now he is known can test the fact and can test the fact that he's been here for thirty years the evidence is overwhelming he's been here thirty years the issue comes down to negative in this case he was consistent in this testimony even though he is a go forward and backward someone the issue is was he out of the country for ninety days or more is it as the court said it was improper to put that burden upon him the burden is on the narrow exception for legal issues regarding the meaning of continuous presence but it doesn't give us room on expanding for purposes of getting further evidence with regard to the continuous physical presence it's a non discretionary fact if the court says you don't have the continuous physical presence then you're not in it it's a lot question did he come did he fall in the box of the law in our position is that is a legal question it's not a question of discretion or issue of the cancelation case in general it was the cancellation in case of differences mr dr it just doesn't deserve it then yes the court would would court this is a case that really turns on the burden of proof and the standard review and this relief the government has the burden of proof to show that the petitioner here which removable and the government did that there's no question about that the government charge that the petitioner entered the country without inspection and the petitioner to see that he wished moveable at that point the burden was on petitioner to demonstrate relief from removal and he attempted to do that here if you saw whether the person is such a national security united states whether the person had already resettled in another country and a few others i may be forgetting but the ninety day period that's part of the elements of cancellation o a trial judge you might be familiar with that the plaintiff has the burden to show the elements of his or her case the defendant during cross examination may try to rebut some of those elements cola counsel for the government said that's a person the parasite to thirteen fourteen i thirty two thirteen notice is a disinterested person he's not a disinterested person that person is a federal agent who job is to arrest and before people so you can't claim that person the center just interested with regard to what transpires some of the information contained there is contained from mr dryden say one point the government says we want to believe them at the next point we don't want to believe i  think the burden of proof is on the government with regard to this issue of a break in the continuous presence all that the statute requires if he proved his ten years of great is something that the government must first bring evidence forth and then we have to address