am concerned about the scope of our jurisdiction here we do not have jurisdiction as you know to review purely discretionary decisions of the agency we can look at the questions and refute so i'm not sure why we should talk about the whether you have an aggravated felony conviction or not could you help me with that absolutely your honor respectfully the immigration judge didn't reach the issue of eligibility for cancellation of removal because he determined that the crime of conviction was an aggravated felony in the transcript during the have been i had the application as a matter of discretion he doesn't get to that he doesn't so the cancellation application is separate it has different factors from the to twelve each weaver application to the standards are different and the immigration court never got because at the start he is he is the judge determined that it was an aggravated felony and the separate factors that go into a cancellation of removal application ok so you didn't say i just wasn't wasn't properly and i know i understand what you're saying is that he should have conducted a different analysis to reach that conclusion but still we don't have jurisdiction to review a discretionary decision to deny cancellation of removal right to even if there was a the inception of the hearing that he was unable to present the evidence anyway so you know the judge was promised or the judge's decision that he wasn't eligible for cancellation is limited and be statute that talks of transferring your producing or creating a false writing or writing that purports to be the writing of somebody else who hasn't in fact authorized it is how is it possible to violate that statute without engaging  person ten with purpose to the fort or injure him it's our position that because it's because of the or injured party that the offense could be committed in the way that doesn't necessarily lead to fraud you can commit a fraudulent fraudulent writing with the intent to injure so for instance if you were to replicate somebody is law school diploma and hold it out to be something other than it was so for instance if you saw that could that could us to in the record that indicates that the restitution amounted not reflect the loss of the victim well but usually go to sleep when it's in order when it's proceedings to to court somebody and the burden is on the government you might point to evidence stablish in that but since we're talking about an application for cancellation of removal it's your client's burden rights of what what could you point to in the record that shows that the restitution amount is not reflect the whether what the law is or how it was calculated because their application was preacher admitted and therefore there was no there is no opportunity for mr beck to continue to provide evidence and that brings me to but i was pretty good on this grant right presentation of evidence there was and the record the record is is is silent there is there is a mention of exhibits and through q during the last hearing but those those exhibits are not in the in the for a lower sentence for instance so mr beck oh didn't i you know and i think the evidence even though there was an affidavit there's no there's there's no substitution for live testimony and all and additionally on it even though the affidavit was submitted the record says well we couldn't get it you know that some could see the fact that we could get her here today and that it was my estimation indicates that there wasn't any knowledge that the individual hearing was he didn't have the opportunity to do that and what's more is that because he wasn't aware of the fact that that is individual hearing is trial was going to take place on that day his wife didn't appear in the immigration judge to and drew a negative inference from the fact that his wife in appear notwithstanding the fact that she had not to be put in the record so i think it's it's troubling that he that he got to that conclusion without having an opportunity to present the evidence and the judge not the opportunity here all the evidence and it in the end i guess the last thing i'd say to that is that the fact that he said that he would deny as a matter of discretion notwithstanding all of the evidence is is dicta and it's not  we not do the hearing right now nd the judge went through all of the exhibit asked petitions counsel if anything's missing and she responds you know everything's fine and he has all the exhibit again she doesn't he's eligible for the visa and cancellation her move will state that an applicant is eligible for cancellation removal if they proved the five years here is a permanent resident seven years in any status and rd that he has not been convicted of an aggravated felony so it would be the petitioners burden to demonstrate that he was not convicted of an aggravated segment which in this case it would be his burden to demonstrate that the loss to the victim was less than ten thousand dollars that that is important and also but are you telling me that under new jersey new jersey law it would be possible to agree to an order of restitution that is tied to the victim's loss on all the charge counts even if he only agrees to tweeze guilty to one you're saying  know all of the ins and outs of new jersey law there may be a way that you can make a restitution agreement that doesn't take to the statute saying that the last act that that recitation needs to needs to actual law or should not exceed it but we don't have that evidence in this case but we know that it was made percentage think if the statute and going back to your initial question all of these questions that you're asking would have been questions that the petitioner was presented to the judge to make that his argument that the law could not exceed ten thousand dollars and the petitioner did not make those arguments and he had the burden of proof even if it's possible that the restitution order did not reflect the actual law the petitioners burden to the actual law to not exceed ten thousand dollars and here so they had the opportunity to there just is not a mission there is testimony is very relevant to that and we couldn't get here today because we didn't expect it to be discussed today and so we'd like a continuance well i think for any more we'd like an opportunity for her to testify in some other way trial they didn't she didn't come to court because she needed to work and she needed to be the sole support for the family so they can do that and ask for a continuance or say that we did we didn't know that this is what was going to happen today if we had  that in the immigration court sometimes things are scheduled for individual hearing so that the judge can reserve a school fly to to give a decision but then there's nothing here that to indicate that and again and also with regard to  the due process issue at the beginning of the hearing judge mullen can deprive the subject is of is ability to present evidence and his due process rights to because he had preacher emitted prior to prior to any presentation of evidence he was given the opportunity so the now not only to he wasn't on notice that his wife needed to be there which a negative inference inference was drawn and also there's a negative in inference with regard to the monetary amount i wasn't he wasn't able to present the evidence i'd submit to the court that the that again with this case warrants really man so that there could be factual findings but it was it so you said you didn't have notices that the leader of the disability but like there's no dispute that he has noticed about the motion to prepare so if he knows that they're definitely going to be talking about whether it is an aggravated felony why doesn't he come with the evidence that he simply didn't know and again there may have been i think one of one other thing that i pointed out previously and it's that i should point out again is that there is just mugging references exhibits in through q but those are not in the certified record  there's no mention of them aside from the introduction to the introduction of the evidence at the beginning of the hearing similar to what one of the friends just could you just tell us what evidence does mr bissell have that he was deprived from presenting to indication that there was any other evidence that he had available to get and wanted to present well again your hon don't we don't know but he should have been able to present the evidence the fact is that he did i'm sure you didn't he didn't ask the president well he didn't he didn't ask to present it because the application was preacher emitted at the into the hearing do you need me introducing this river quicker all the way to q right so he didn't have the option to present evidence i understand are you saying he didn't get to introduce evidence or he introduced evidence and the judge didn't pay attention or there is some more evidence that he would that he would have wanted to present that he just didn't present for whatever reason on that day and you'd like to go back and produce more evidence and i don't know what the argument is to were there  a very reasonable assumption that he was introducing evidence favorable