made it please the court and good morning wouldn't you rather on behalf of petitioner the first issue that i would like to address whether substantial evidence supports the agency's conclusion that petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal at the time as the court is aware there were no conviction documents in the record the i j a though however came to a legal conclusion that the petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal without analyzing anything he came to the legal conclusion that this was a crime of domestic violence obviously speaking of his two seventy three point five conviction and that it was a crime involving moral turpitude he could not analyze anything because that's i stated there were no conviction documents in the record therefore i feel that this case should be remanded for further fact fi and so the immigration judge can analyze these convictions and give a well thought out and reasoned analysis on how he came to this conclusion of law that the two seventy three point five was perpetrated against a protected person he could not come to that conclusion because there was no analysis possible because there were no conviction crime of violence under ben weller however a two seventy three point five conviction you can be convicted for two seventy three point five for perpetrating this crime against a of person who was not protected for instance a fiance is not in the federal definition of a protected person however it is in the definition of the state conviction or a former cohabit or let's say for example two brothers got into a scuffle and they is this really a crime involving a moral turpitude which obviously this case was ruled to not be a crime baltimore perfectly but that is just an example of how some want to be because your client is a civil immigration priority two because of his conviction for domestic violence but he domestic violence conviction those back to nineteen ninety seven as eighteen years ago yes  you i'm not sure i know he does we always have to be on you don't know yes my answer is i'm not sure he definitely has i would say between five and ten employees somewhere around here that he is he just guessing is based on by information at the time yes i have guessing based on i haven't specifically asked him how many people work for him and our last meeting however business that's you know i was just thinking because of these factors and  maybe the way to go here would be the months to get this case into mediation and this conviction i believe is the reason that if ever made has declined to take this case off the active knock it and put it in mediation you want to save to mess with his life yeah i would just like to add one thing very quickly and i would like to say the last two minutes as the court is well aware two seventy three point five  you know your honor it wasn't placed in mediation the court issued an order for us to to consider whether petitioner would qualify and may please the court elizabeth cohen on behalf of the united states attorney general well why would this be a good chase to meet you i have no wife  reviewable by this court and the fact of the matter is petitioner has a criminal history which includes convictions for petty theft and his domestic violence conviction and that as your honor acknowledged earlier places him in a priority to category for removal this domestic violence conviction is something that remains on his record  he received it as he testified and admitted to from an instant with his spouse where he hit her in the face so hard that it caused her i did bleed for whatever  reason we cannot go back and look at that that conviction remains he has admitted to that and that was is the reason why the board that was eighteen years ago  yes your honor he was also arrested in two thousand for that same charge but four for that same reason but charges were never brought by he admitted to the fact that he knows the rest just for that reason or for but again i we cannot look at the factors as to what the h s considers all we know is that because of the conviction which remains on his record and because of his criminal history including the petty theft conviction and he remains a priority too and therefore prosecutorial discretion is not appropriate in his case his domestic violence conviction which he admitted to is the reason why the board determined that he has been convicted of a crime of domestic violence and why he's ineligible for cancellation a removal he still say he never challenged that claim before that decision or that aspect of that the board's decision or the immigration judge's decision before the board he still does not dispute that his primary focus has been on whether that qualifies as a crime involving mortal moral turpitude and but that is not relevant removal in addition substantial had served or or scary your honor the law has not changed in that area what what has what the law has changed is with regards to burden of proof the burden of proof and all man's arena does not apply to this case for two very important reasons the first is that petitioner never has never disputed that he finished convicted of two seventy three point five that is undisputed and and so therefore he never he never challenged that finding before the board he didn't exhaust that and second of all this court case law which still stands and has been repeatedly affirmed in several unpublished decisions is that two seventy three point five categorically qualifies as a crime of domestic violence so is the issues of burden of proof and an inconclusive conviction records those don't apply to this case because this court case a stablish case law has already found that it categor qualifies as a crime of domestic violence and that's why he's ineligible for cancellation of removal and those decisions still stand so the question about burden of proof is not at issue in this case particularly when petition has already admitted and does not dispute and he stated that  to consider whether he could potentially be an be an eligible for cancellation but unfortunately it cannot do so when the statute and congress has provided that it can that he's not eligible because of that conviction congress chose to make that distinction not the agency and the agency cannot go beyond what congress has where vital what about all these new policies  is outside that solely within the discretion of the h s and according to the the standards and the factors that are listed here unfortunately remains a priority i take that as a compliment your honor if it's awesome thank you but i i i i apologize but i again i'm here to defend the agency's decision and i would argue also that substantial importantly to go to the issue of domestic violence if the court examines the administrative record the respondent never conceded that this was a domestic violence conviction it was  is very important in the analysis and reasoning this court came to reach the conclusion that the b i a third by looking at evidence outside the conviction documents in that case in open court that the respondent admitted that the person who he committed a crime of violence and therefore protect a person and i think the fact that we never conceded that it was a crime of domestic violence and the reasoning involved surviving to severe holder is directly on point with the issue of to that and i understand your argument your time thank you