permanent resident of the united states for forty years this is due process rights were ignored by the immigration judge there are two points petitioner would like to make to the court today first denying america a continuance to review late filed conviction documents violated investigated your client's history and really i guess what i'm coming down to is if he wasn't convicted of those two nine hundred ninety one charges then he's not eligible for voluntary departure  only that is the basis of the portability that is the charge on the notice to appear well but he doesn't but the wave off doesn't continue on when he comes back before the court again you know in there is no waiver of those offenses however he he is no longer the portable for those offenses he has to be i guess the way i understand you know i guess what we're all sort of getting at is how does he ever propel at the end of the day but but also to as i understand your argument first you say ok he he got a two twelve waiver back some time ago and that's not just be correct correct all right and i'm jay shouldn't have been able to get those into into evidence correct because then you have to move to the next level for that if that if that's true that then they shouldn't come into evidence and then if you lose on those then you say well the fact that he got the way far back then means that he's not deportable and therefore he's entitled to voluntary departure there's a lot of everyone that but you know i'm just you know how do i look at that record chance to remain here again no longer deportable for those convictions then in two thousand and four he had a conviction which is not noted to be an aggravated felony by the government withdrew the aggravated felony charge it was only a two thirty seven eight to be controlled he was convicted if those records come in and he was convicted about the thousands was he eligible based it depends on what those convictions are for is you know we have the record if that record if i were to find that that record was admissible in the form that it came in and we've talked about what it means how would it be eligible for voluntary departure from the one nine hundred ninety one convictions even if they came in even if they came in with both of them come in if that record come say and how  understanding so correct me if i'm wrong is it's that it leads one court has rejected the argument you're making that the third circuit i thought had held that were a conviction was waive  would still be considered for purposes of making someone in eligible for cancellation yes your honor you are exactly right and the immigration and nationality act section two forty eight c states that if you have been granted it to twelve waiver you are no longer bill for cancellation of removal in the section that we're referring to today congress was not silent it was not ambiguous either what it states was in last you are two thirty seven eight to be of the immigration nationality act and last could go did you have another question was your question answered right you might want to reserve the balance of your time then yes john thank you thank you very much agency level therefore they would be the they didn't we serve their right to appeal it but even if we were if we were to address the issue basically asking us to look over this  within the i a e a that is that it considers such possibility there by giving the attorney general through its agency the discretion to look at his past previous criminal record in order to determine whether he might be willing to grant this felon the right to stay in this country or not would not be eligible because an immigration judge is entitle to grant the relief of voluntary departure only under limited circumstances circumstances and in following strict following of certain requirements which are for the petition the petitioner here the alien to add me admit to all factual allegations which in this case he did not because the alien deny both that he was convicted for a controlled substance violation and that he was serving the fifteen month sentence which he was serving at the moment he denied that he was serving it it requires for him to not request any other forms of relief and as a record reflects he did request  marriage of release available to him and he is to waive all appeal rights which of course he didn't otherwise we would not be here today so in any case even if we were to take away the two aggravated felony convictions convictions ok well that that's not the question that that's why you say that i didn't have to but i think judge nelson's question was still the i j n form no the fact of the matter is that he did not because they were trying to is was he not prejudiced because he was convicted twice in one thousand nine hundred one that the reason that he was not prejudiced he's not prejudiced one because he was convicted back in ninety one two because he was convicted for at that time of course because it wasn't as i see it that's real question wasn't proven here and it came up in such a form of government didn't have copies of the conviction documents available from the petition relevant because of past time it was clear he had not complied with the other provisions of the regulation of course but the question was what would have happened had the i j a informed him of his right maybe he could have waived all those things and been petitioner were given the opportunity to rebut those convictions which of course he could not have he would still remain in eligible for pre conclusion of hearing voluntary departure what's your position on the  well right now the fact that it was objective to at any given point the track that it's a court that it's the court itself taking notice of its own actions but there are any additional questions from any of the panel members i don't have any no i don't have any if you don't have anything further we don't have any further questions thank you thank you