destructive a device and the other being charged with exhibiting a firearm the government offered no documents to support the convictions then that's when we ask you something about yes lack of documents the purpose of the document is to be evidence  certified copy of the judgment of conviction is the best evidence of what a person was convicted of but in this case there's no evidence that he wasn't convicted of this gun crime and as far as i could tell there was a concession by his attorney that he committed the twelve o three a violation and also there was testimony under oath by kenny as well that he the others possession of a firearm he did testify the facts that might amount to possession of a firearm but that's not what he's charged with in the notice to appear nor with the judge found him removable on the basis that the judge found remove ability which is possession of a destructive device the facts that were testified to might amount to a penal code section twelve zero three one a which is possession of a firearm two separate distinct charges in fact the twelve three zero one eight i believe deals with destructive devices other than firearms except for in the fact of a firearm capable of shooting admonition over point six zero caliber which clearly there was no no evidence to show he was carrying a gun of this magnitude or they were talking about projectiles and steve what else well counsel left let's make sure about this as i understand it what the district court did earth what the immigration judge did is that he had in front of him a form i two sixty one which was filed by your client that with the d h s s as i understand  and that as a rule as to that i to sixty one form which contain factual allegations on the charges for remove ability that right there he made admissions he conceded proper he put into its cancellation of removal as part of the convictions that he had suffered and as far as the twelve three zero one eight there was it was charged that there was nothing in the writings to say that yes i've been but as i understood it he looked at the two sixty one form the i j a went through the form and he made the admissions they stuff on the form which gave the allegations necessary in the  is mind to find that he was convicted of the appropriate remove ability under the statute and what we're really talking about is that's the government need to give the documents or not and  because he's admitted is just i'm just admitting what facts which might constitute a crime is that all it needs to be done that's what we're really talking about here more the facts establish whether it's a firearm or not for the purposes of falling under the remove ability statute for possession of a firearm legally possessing a firearm and i believe the board of immigration appeals addressed that and did you read this case bargain lopez been met but at the hearing mark and lopez admitted each factual allegation considered by the i j a in the board for removal therefore his own admissions constitute clear convincing and unequivocal evidence so that's quite a different standard than we have in the normal criminal case where we would have to go through all of the analysis for finding documents  on that case is the missions are enough to get that right why isn't it sufficient to have both the form do sixty one sixty one coupled with all of he admitted is that recall he admitted that he went into a bar and bought a gun from a guy in the men's room and carried it out in a paper bag and then withdrew it from the paper bag what does that constitute exhibiting a firearm i don't think that is bag or you're saying it's necessarily rude angry or threatening right there specific elements that have to be met he didn't testify the elements to facts that would meet the elements of this crime they may meet the elements of possession of a thank you thank you  the other one is section four seventeen eighteen you know which specifically references firearms offenses that we do not have a document that shows the twelve zero three one four or the fo to bid now tell me exactly what the admission under or under that they're going to lopez we can use this testimony tell me exactly what his testimony establishes a violation of well we actually maintain then it's not his testimony because the only issue in this case he doesn't challenge that under the categorical approach that this court uses he doesn't challenge that for seventeen eighteen who is not categorically a firearms offense he doesn't challenge requirement is the fact if it can talk about the law in a minute through first i want to know what crime he has been proved by clear committing it but it's a minute at least four separate times and not testimony not in his testimony before the immigration judge when he described what actually happened the facts underlying the conviction the actual converter to make this mission the for my two sixty one is the supplemental charges over movability filed by the did not in testimony but in what at the beginning of the hearing before the immigration judge made his lawyer statement of the beginning  affirming that all the contents they're in are true and in both of those he listed in the section asking for his convictions he listed a conviction under four seventy two and that's  at page one seventy two of the administrative records in those me and that it was just more of a question for example on the cancellation of location check one have or have never been if he's admitting he was arrested for that won't carry the day for you  ministry of record so you've got to be sure to give me a candid in full disclosure but the way i understood what you quoted was he admits that he was not admitted because of those convictions not that he actually was convicted i'm thinking a person also suppose i was trying to get into the united states and they said no you were convicted of murder and i said that was to me nowhere i mean there are at least four separate instances where in one way or another he admits this conviction he hired his attorney his attorney speaks for him that's the way it works in every immigration proceeding that the attorney admits or doesn't admit the factual allegations to be so it's the so what we should come down through is whether the attorneys admission is clear and unequivocal evidence well we believe that the four that in you might be able to find a problem with each individual one but there are at least four separate instances where in one way or another he admits this conviction that he never challenges and i don't have any problem with whether the guy really did it i think he bought a gun in a bar that's supposed to do that and display it if there has been for several legal reasons my problem is our courts precedence we need to clear or not equal evidence one way or another and i want to know what it is  the other evidence in the record we are in need but you're saying no we don't believe it does but because he admitted to the fact of the conviction but i have but i don't know it's not in the record you people used to mail i mean practice we used to mail away from birth certificates certifi why not thank you thank you attorney's admission well that's complicated by the fact of the denial by the client when he gets a chance to speak in another thing is the six zero one waiver was not signed by the petitioner it was signed by th hired by the family why can't we rely on that theory right then and there one word from the attorney of record representing then why do we need tests to take testaments so yes but then later on we take testimony from the client regarding the different convictions when we're looking at his relief and during that time that's when he denies that he's ever been convicted then he puts facts on the record that don't establish that any found removeable after that he could move to w get a certified copy of the judgment of correctly and i was the counsel down below and i can tell you that the certified record wasn't available because it was destroyed because of this sort of five record was destroyed prior to the government requested it because it had been sold because it was a ninety three conviction it was over ten years old at that it was no longer available from the courts now no what they do is not misdemeanor cases after ten years they destroy the file and there's no record of getting