is the sufficiency of the documents of conviction and the third is just confirming our position on the divisibility of health and safety code section one one three seven eight and penal code one two zero two one and on that issue we've recognized that there has been much case law that has been decided since the time we were appointed pro bono counsel and so it's in recognition of that i simply like to preserve our issues on health and safety code one one three seven eight and recognize that the case law seems to have has raised the question as to jurisdiction and there seems to be a question as to whether the court has jurisdiction or not the government says that the court must look at the immigration judge's decision and rule that mr alvarez has been convicted of an aggravated decision which is based on the documents of conviction and those documents of conviction were never admitted into the record by the immigration corps so what about the statement that the immigration judge's findings were it mentions the conviction documents for example at the bottom of a r o two when explaining its russia now if it says we find that to the contrary the immigration judge appropriately found the responde formally admitted by the immigration judge is that your argument yes or no ok and why do they have to if it's in the record why can't the immigration judge consider those documents there's no record that the immigration judge ever considered those documents are on or they may have been submitted however if you look on a are seventy four there is a stamp by the immigration court saying exhibit one and this is the notice of removal and if you look on a are seventy nine or on or there's a same stamp it's hard to see that there's a same stamp and it indicates that the court never actually considered these documents your honor and it's just a over where where the decisions here are to banish somebody for life i think it's entirely appropriate to ask the government the immigration court to follow all of the rules of procedure and my understanding of the government's argument is not that they're even really relying on those documents but more they're relying on the in mission and your client who i don't know whether he was represented by counsel or not at the time the hearing but he was asked whether he was convicted for the possession for sale of methamphetamine in violation of section eleven three hundred seven a and he answered yes so he admitted that he had that court to rely upon mr alvarez's admission at the plea hearing and finally in terms of the weight had to be relied upon the i g is findings and decisions and be entirely appropriate for this court to do so as well however we are find ourselves in a funny situation where the i j a made a finding based on x the b i did not address x and relied on y in those documents were never admitted so we have a funny procedural situation here in which the court this court is now constrained to look at the decision as opposed to the i g decision because to be i decided to conduct an overview of the record your honor to get to that result we'd have to agree with your as to whether or not the v i i has incorporated the i g f decision it seems that the b a a just is relying upon the documents of conviction rather than the plea hearing or well in terms of the actual conviction documents is there any doubt explanation you can proceed well that question was never raised in the immigration court now i'm just look at the docket look at the face of the documents is there any ambiguity here we're not contesting that your honor ok so that kind of comes back to judge ward last question that there's no ambiguity in the documents and remain and we're asked to look and see whether it would be futile or just a diversion that would end up exactly the same you explain in any way how a read man would change the result here gratian context specifically this court has said because a review is the no go we conduct an independent examination of the entire record thus this court may consider any and all evidence in the record in determining mr alvarez and remove ability decision is of no moment it's harmless error because it would not change the outcome in this case mr elkins in my correct though that the government relies solely on the admission during the hearing as opposed to the documents and conviction at least in your brief yes your honor in our brief the government relied on the pleading stage admission by mr alvarez that can be found on page sixty four of the record that he did indeed state that he had been jurisdiction that we couldn't look at just anything in order to just charge that is that correct yeah sure you could look at anything oh you mean we could get on the internet and see what it said there about him could yeah i have you think that there absolutely no limit on what we could look at is that the government within your traditional role says yes your honor in fact in several and in several parts of immigration law specifically as the court's appellate review this court does going to be on the record for example in the context of tim question it because that would suggest you know some guy walks in off the street and says something say oh that sounds good i think i'll take that into account for my jurisdictional analysis and then i get on the internet and spend a couple hours there and so i think that your statement made it seems a little broader what you this is all part of the record that we're looking at here isn't it yes your honor and in the record this court made it may determine that based on only the evidence in the record even scamps your honor i believe that the immigration judge was fine with the regulation saying what this court decides the immigration judge in fact this court has even acknowledged and i believe it was impress me here that this restricted only to what the board has said the scope of this court's to know review is similarly broad it is not restricted to what the board or any lower court has said in fact this court has said that specifically for it and no review it reviews different things and if the court comes to the conclusion that the b i did not look at the i just decision based on the plea hearing then respectfully the police hearing would not be before this court in considering whether or not mr  of whether it's a fax the court's way of looking at all all types of cases i think that is overbroad when this court looks at the district court cases think it's a novo review is not as constrained as it is when looking at agency cases and that procedural distinction should be should be recognized thank you your honor thank you i would like to think both counsel for your arguments this morning in particular mesko harra for participating in our court pro bono program i think it's very helpful to the court when we have so many of these undecided issues and where there wasn't counsel below to be able to have a very good brief and i know the government appreciates that as well so again i thank you for participating in the