substantial reasonable uncooperative evidence that he was involved as an assistant or a trafficker or absolute or in drug trafficking activities or for that was reason to believe that was true simply that he knew of the commission of the crime and failed to report that crime so it is our submission that thought that conviction in the information underlying it which were admitted do not support the conclusion that he was a good catholic or and therefore excludable or that there was reason to believe he was a drug trafficker for purposes of the statute is it necessary that the immigration judges look the government was ordered to present those documents to the court by that date january twenty second and also to provide those documents to opposing counsel they failed to do so hearing on february third for the first time they presented documents which were police reports and an immigration record containing hearsay statements to the court and should counsel at that same date i object to the admission of those documents so in the context of presenting the documents the police reports that can change the facts of the case after the court imposed deadline and the court did say its the documents were not submitted by the imposed deadline they were statements contained in the police report the government did not request a continuance either and it is fundamental fairness it seems to me your no way to prepare to respond no i couldn't subpoena the witnesses the officers that were the authors of report why not because i didn't know they were presenting those police reports at the hearing you knew because they put them there and so the response that you could offer up is then judge i need some time now to respond i have a continuance but you didn't make that request that's correct but it's that time i didn't know that the judge was going to admit those documents in violation of his in court imposed deadline and in addition to that it's one thing to deal with these documents at the time of the hearing trying to prepare my client for them and try to deal with subpoenas involving not only about the officers but also other people who were involved in the activities this was a nine hundred ninety incident it was  the question who the vehicle was lent to according to the hearsay reports so not only did i have to subpoena the officers but i also had to go and find people who had gone for five or six years and who knows we are  at the time i walked into the courtroom going through the government submitted the documents on a timely basis that they were late but that doesn't parlay into a due process violation because the judge decided to consider them and you backed off the opportunity to do anything else but the previous order had you had the time to do something else the result would have been any different sure what i would have done is sought out the person who was in the in the vehicle who was named in the police reports as the person to whom the call was land my client denied knowledge of the marijuana at the time of the commission of the offense he person who is co charged with him said he lent the vehicle to the passenger of the vehicle no indication that my client was either involved a nationally as a by information that the government had at the time they started the investigation no indication or mentioned by other people who are called charged with him that he was involved absolutely zero i would have thought i'll close other individuals and attempted to bring them to court if i knew that the chase was going to proceed on the basis of underlying facts rather than the charging document and the document of conviction certainly there were things i could have done he made a denial initially he never pled guilty to a drug tracker picking offense this was an old chemist there was a piece of mr president there was no plea to a drug related offense and there was some there was evidence to support my client jurisdictional challenge to our court at least going into certain issues in this case you know the issue you're you've been discussing for the last few minutes about a due provided to the court late i'll be it together with the guilty plea of misprision of a felony would be sufficient information to cause a consular officer or attorney general to have reason of any of the information contained in the documents that he objected to and so part of these documents are public records set forth matters observed pursuant to a duty imposed by law to marry with a very very well may have wishes to rule on that basis in addition to that in terms of the argument that my client ran from the vehicle he explained that in the police reports that he was a favorite mcgrady analysis he did not make any admission as marijuana and it is clear to me that number one case that preceded timely or prompt fashion the plea to miss prison does not provide substantial evidence that there's reason to believe he's a drug trafficker or an accomplice to a drug trafficker in terms of the objection  i object siri adam the only document that was presented to me her november twenty fourth hearing was the charging document which is the information and and the documents confessions those i did not object to