or her gender in this particular case when it was heard on the merits before the immigration carried the judge indicated that by the fourth a conviction that she had for communicating with a minor for  in this particular case it's our position that the court in terms of looking at the appropriate record of conviction that this particularly important in this case because there are much more serious charges that were made against this more  presented in the testimony and in that the and then there was that thing about well because those are assumed to be correct if you will in a sufficiency of the evidence challenge that that meant that those facts actually existed in this proceeding having been assumed in another proceeding again i'm not making that you clear but that bothered me as well when i read about that you are as we were talking about apples and oranges the government has made a novel argument and i know that they didn't cite any cases which support that argument that by challenging this efficiency of evidence we are therefore admitting those facts within the context of the removal proceedings against me what i was well i suppose the court of appeal in washington should have assumed is true the facts only with regard to the solicitation because that  they're only it really really was that they found that based on the review of the record that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction for the mr miller conviction for communicating and what is wrong with that can i can't find any authority that i was for that to be done in the table or the supreme court decision they specifically state that and making these type of the terminations of the court should not look at the actual facts but requirement of violence to have only that's what you know i don't see anything wrong with that with the immigration judge considering the fact that the state court of appeal of firm the judgment so you have the conviction and the affirms the problem is either no time or just a few days in jail was a very minimal sentence that was imposed on this more honest as we have indicated in our brief we're talking about most serious offens s within this time context of what's called the most serious crime within the withholding a removal context and it do seem to have slightly different considerations under the statute states that an aggravated felony for which five years or more are imposed would be considered to be a most serious crime obviously that's not the case here but at the same time it doesn't preclude is a particularly serious offense or a particularly serious crime other than what i've what i've indicated there is some of the other stories cited by the government which is correct which for s and him and stated that the court could consider the certificate of probable cause either which we have in this case there is no particular problem because there's no guilty plea there's no transcript of a plea hearing jurisdiction it is the government's contention that the court is entitled to the immigration court and i g s entitle to look at the record of judgment in determining what is a particular serious crime and the record he can look at stuff that is assume for the purposes of argument that the applicant i guess or even in one of their words sorry i'm not using the right word can so whatever went in a vat i guess he's assumed to be true and she's saying well go ahead and assume and that's all right even if you assume all of that is so all it's still not sufficient evidence to convict me that was her argument in the state court i presume just so that doesn't mean she said i did all that stuff in fact she denied doing it when she was on trial well yes put in order to consider a record of judgement this court looks at  are the facts for purposes of this conviction it indicated that this particular defendant how to a science or consent to those facts and so it becomes part of the record  review and part of what an immigration judge can rely on making his discretion determination to me at least in that she is the one raising this argument she has sent to that this was the evidence that was presented here you know that's on me and you know the government see it in other words the the lawyer for the government immigration hearing didn't bring in any deal for example could have brought in one of the one of the victims of this and have them fact other than to say sure the facts of the case and under our stand to review those facts were admitted as true by the defendant on page and i'll direct the court to i think the second page of decision