stop time role in section twelve twenty nine b in permissibly retroactively affects and changes earlier circumstances and therefore is that appropriate in this case turning first of the california record in the conviction i want to point the court's probably the most important line on the page of that single page document before we get there it gets to that point you might just very briefly and i mean i know this is always difficult but there is a opening brief i think the issue with that there was a case come before the reality act so it's unclear how that standard still exists after the problem is he's been convicted of an aggravated felony correct no no no definitely not your honor in fact initially that's what was alleged by the government and the notice to appear and the immigration judge decided after a series of hearings that there wasn't fact no aggravated but then he was convicted of a controlled substance well that's that's what's alleged in this case and actually mr flores disclosed in his application that he may have been convicted of a controlled substances offense in one nine hundred ninety five the problem is the government turned around in the single page document produced what they claim to be evidence of a controlled substance conviction from one nine hundred ninety three and the most important line on that single page document reads that all of the records prior to two thousand and three have been destroyed maybe if you need to correct something for my accordion my understanding of the record he was which we can review these matters but the issue concerning his eligibility for cancellation of removal turns on the one nine hundred ninety three conviction and the immigration judge and the board of immigration appeals reading of that single page they say we've considered it and we're deciding that we are not going to cancel removal that's a discretionary decision but the immigration judge in the board never reached that they determined that he was ineligible for cancellation of removal and that's a different question that's a legal matter particular conviction we don't know what he was convicted of back in one nine hundred ninety three according to this document alone it simply doesn't give us enough detail to do that analysis when we look to section twelve twenty nine be the one concerning c eleven eighty two which then takes you to eight u s c eight o two which then takes you to a twelfth there's no way to conduct that analysis from the single page document there's no way to determine from this document that mr flores was actually then or says can arrest conviction he says twenty three hyphen love a nine a three why why wouldn't that be an indication that it was convicted on eleven nine ninety three of the charge the specified by code number because as we know from the criminal process frequently people are ultimately convicted of charges that are far different from what they're charged with any initial in that the government starts with certain charges but through pleas green minced with element of evidence they often end up at a conviction for a far different offense and because a lack of specificity on this form there's no way they determine that the conviction at issue is one that would est no he's not eligible they have then assumed the burden to try and demonstrate this lack of eligibility this document doesn't do that it doesn't carry that burden i will also tell your honor that based on some information in the record this document is wrong forty three ninety i believe if you look at this rap sheet which i don't think is evidence that this court can rely on in this case at this point but if you look at the rap sheet in reading the single page california document it's clear that the document not only lacks specificity it made him eligible and the government's failure to show otherwise very briefly the second issue has to live with the retroactivity and the government's men are applying to stop time rule in this case as was shown in saints are follow those circumstances you can reach back in time and retroactively grab all offense and now use that to apply to start time rule and for that reason it's inappropriate in this case and should be remanded for consideration of his application ok may please the court brian viral on behalf of the attorney general's respondent i'd like to begin by addressing some of the issues about the convictions the court has indicated there is a very serious question about jurisdiction here we argued in our brief it's simply a substantial evidence issue he's arguing that the document does not contain sufficient information for the agency to have reached the conclusion that it did wouldn't that be a question of law whether it's ramadan decision notes it's a question of law is intended to refer to a narrow range of statutory construction issues the statute in this case that makes that record adequate proof of a conviction  but basically it's a list of various sorts of documents including documents prepared by or under the direction of the court that reflect the existence of the conviction the charge the date of the whether this particular document satisfies that statute would constitute a question of law now that's not the issue that was presented to the board the issue that was presented to the board was i guess the best way to characterize it that this document simply is not reliable now the question that is implicated by the with that ought to be enough to provide jurisdiction and then if one were considering the question of the well that's correct your honor i gree with you however the problem of exhaustion is not waived by the real id act the problem is that this issue was never presented to lord as i mentioned the argument before the board was the documents and it wasn't reliable it was handwritten and it was created after the fact you know several years and things like that and in my twenty eight j letter i cited a recent decision of this court that indicates that when there isn't a specific challenge to the sufficiency of the conviction record that needs to be presented different issues and i think that that i mean that's that's a conclusion i know but the board has to be put on notice of really what the substance of the challenge was and the brief to the board was the government has met its burden with the government doesn't have a burden in the relief face we disagree with mr floors this counsel that there's a burden shifting where simply filing an application carries the burden for proving eligibility for relief mr flores has the responsibility of demonstrating that he should be considered for this extraordinary relief and he has all the information at it and he should be able to retrieve the information much more easily than the government can because he was presumably a participant in these criminal proceedings and knows about it he told his counsel more information apparently than and has been disclosed in this record at the i j a hearing  his former counsel said well he got drug court and he was put on probation and it was maybe some sort of diversion or something sinister flora's hasn't carry this burden here he should come forward he should disclose everything about his record and demonstrate to hi  i will add though that i took a look at the rap sheet too i tried to figure out what's going on and the extent that it matters i think that what explains the timing of all this is that this gives me mr flores was arrested in april one thousand nine hundred five an additional drug charges after he was arrested in one nine hundred ninety three and went to court and it's likely my  but even if you assume that it would restart under some theory subsequent convictions started again so there hasn't been an unbroken seven year continuous residence period without in a sense as i read the record i don't have much time i'd like to first of why do we have to worry about nine hundred eighty three that well your honor it doesn't matter whether it's ninety three or ninety five as i mentioned the critical point is whatever you say ninety seven there is it's close to ninety seven conviction though the basis of his order of removal occurred after seven years had accrued yeah so he says he had satisfied but for his his prior offenses if the first crime that he had committed the result in the conviction was in ninety seven or nine seven years that transpires after that why hasn't he eligible general peace that question well three conviction would would be a break in if if that's the case but he's had seven years since  mr flores had not committed the offenses that resulted in prior convictions then he would have still have accrued seven years before he would have accrued seven years presents before  resulted in his conviction in ninety seven but having committed offenses prior to that and having them result in convictions that's what cut off his time our first visit our first well that's what i'm trying to find out what cut off this time what cut off his time is that is well let me put it this way under the statute his time is cut off as of the date of the commission of an offense that renders him subject to removal or inadmissibility and in  well now you are i'm sorry well i think she said now what i was what i was attempting to explain is that if mr keefer had had an argument that the statute should be construed in such a way as to conclude that this is  an exhaustion requirement that's correct but if you satisfy that exhaustion requirement then your your statement the judge had here in court was that if you frame the question the way counsel for petitioner does it would be a legal question and we would have jurisdiction well your honor if there was a put it this way if there were two different ways of reading section two forty c three be one way in which  mr flores would be able to show that there was a conviction that would be one thing but really in a way to forty c three b is kind of beside the point because the issue here i mean mr mr flores as i understand it ha s not contested that he was convicted his has his challenges to the adequacy of the documents to prove the elements of eligibility and the government doesn't have the burden and that mr flores says the burden on the and that not the facts of the conviction that renders mr flores an eligible for cancellation it's that fact plus the fact that he remain in the united states after april first one thousand nine hundred seventy that section two twelve c really thought waiver in miss ability at the border and not had to stop time will apply to him it was his decision to remain here in the united states that is the act that led to the application of a stop time will thank you attorney representing mr flores at the hearing it is not clear that he was actually convicted of that specific offense of eleven seventy three x means that issue about whether the document actually proves a conviction for an offense that would render him ineligible was raised from five there's no way to evaluate whether it would disqualify him for cancellation of removal and that's his point and that is a legal question as the government as you noted has conceded and they conceded a substantial evidence standard that this court has used in po and then he is showing of a color code section why wouldn't that mean there would be why wouldn't that be a reasonable interpretation to find that he was charged on that date with conviction on that date that offense it's unreasonable because of all of the problems with the documents cited in the opening brief this is somebody on back after records of already been destroyed and trying to construe what had happened as much as ten years prior and in fact if we look at the rap sheet which i agree is difficult to read and i don't think it's evidence that you can rely on to find some other conviction documents inaccurate because it only references an eleven seventy three offense in one thousand nine hundred five yet this court is claiming in this document that he was convicted of an eleven seventy three offense in one nine hundred ninety three if you look at the court disposition in the rap sheet on eleven nine ninety three it refers to two eleven three sixty eight offense or an eleven three sixty eight offense and forty nine thirty  fense and it actually says and they're not convicted of these offenses pled to a different charge which goes to my argument that just because something is charged at one point doesn't mean that's what the individual is actually convicted of in the end and it's because of all those inconsistency some problems and all the things we don't know that this document is insufficient evidence of a conviction that would disqualify mr flores for eligibility cancellation of removed and that issue of eligibility is the legal question