specifically holds the exercise of discretion and i don't see that we have jurisdiction over discretionary denials so how do we get around that point so putting to one side what other complication removable removal it's inseparable in this case from the statutory denial of a cancellation of removal first the hearing at which mr rodriguez or rebate representing himself pro se the immigration judge started off by saying that he believed that he was in the eligible based on an aggravated felony conviction this finding overshadow the entire hearing during their during that hearing so at that point the judge immigration about the case and so you on us we would submit to you that in this case the due process violation based on the statutory denial it's inseparable from the discretionary how we deal we deal in arguments the alternative all the time we make these sure this did this conviction should get rid of the cancellation of removal but he says even if it does look at all this others i mean he even said even if it does look at all this other stuff i've got to do and that i can rely upon which question the evidence prepare on mount a property fence gather and present evidence on his behalf specifically to show that the vehicle code conviction was not an aggravated felony the code of federal regulations the operating rules provide specifically under eight r twelve forty point eight d that there is supposed to be a showing of that and so forth for this reason the immigration judge as resurrection was our i'd like to turn to the mayn't transport etc remains inconclusive on the truth each arse at least two features on which the california health and safety code is divisible if you look at eleven three seventy nine which is the code schedule of controlled substances control regulated by eleven three seventy nine it's much broader than what the federal yes they controlled substances act regulates and so it's still divisible and and and so it's guilty to and that is exactly why shepard and tail are they tape every line from the narrow set of documents and that set of documents so narrow that even judicial admissions the gold standard of every venture one thing i'd like to focus on briefly your honor that was raised by posing counsel was the suggestion that somehow mr rodriguez ribeye was caught unaware that this charge was resurrected a charge of remove ability that was somehow resurrected in his case improperly factually speaking that is not what happened in this case and it's a key distinction the charge of remove the building was withdrawn the government moved to withdraw it the immigration judge granted that motion that charge of remove ability was withdrawn that's a legal determination the remove ability determination but the factual allegation of the conviction was never withdrawn it was admitted documentation was submitted it was never withdrawn and in fact when the case was green ended from the board back to the immigration judge the documentation was resubmitted so suggested mr rodriguez a rebase somehow lacked notice or subject to some sort of unfair surprise attack or resurrection of the charge factually speaking that is simply not accurate there's a difference between the factual allegation of a conviction and of legal conclusion as to remove ability and i just want to address that because it was raised again today despite being address valastro medina and abstract in conjunction with in concert with and information is sufficient to establish that the conviction the problems in other cases now that have marcos simply don't apply here and now that marcus the court had a situation where the charging document tracked the entire statute and the court speculate it was left to say we don't know we have to speculate what did he do it was a trance for possession use whatever it was we don't know this court does not face any sort of problem like that here the charging documents specifically narrowed the charge specifically says to wit transport methamphetamine the abstract comes in afterward and says he was he pled guilty to and was found guilty of charge one in the in the information earlier this court has both in this case and does not need to speculate what actually happened in this case with regard to the second issue is this sorry cancellation of removal denial the immigration judge relied on would urge this court to recognize that they are separable the boards for the board of immigration bill specifically said we are upholding only the discretionary denial of removal this court very clearly under this court's precedent has no jurisdiction to review the discretionary by by step part in this case finally to invite the absence of judgment into the narrow universal's documents would be a slippery slope in other words a minute or dos and other documents like that might very well be accepted in the future and that is