series involves a lawful permanent resident mr walker patrick who was removed from this country because he was found to have been a convicted aggravated felony in the course of challenging his removal order mr walker patrick was caught in a transition challenges to final orders of removal and instead expanded the jurisdiction of the court of appeals to consider constitutional and statutory challenges to orders of removal on direct action for procedural errors or constitutional magnitude so and the due process claim asserted in your case your honor that is correct and it appears that mr walker patrick perhaps could have raised that claim and in a matter case in that chain was challenging whether or not the ten thousand dollars loss requirement was sufficiently met to show that he had been convicted of an aggravated felony that she would be that regime so he'd be right back in the same situation that he didn't exhaust your honor under the hevia its rules the court has not applied the statutory bar directly of twelve fifty two to one the court noted in noriega lopez that it was an open question whether that statutory bar applied the court has indeed applied credential exhaustion requirements and under those rules  incarcerate at the time it appears he had difficulty receiving mail and orders of the court so i think that if the court were to apply prudential exhaustion requirements as it had done and as a previous  that they should not be applied to preclude mr walker patrick from raising his constitutional claims particularly where the constitutional claim particularly the one that amicus puts forth in it magnitude of a procedural due process violation the interest of the individual at stake the risk of erroneous deprivation of rights and the interest of the government in maintaining the previous procedures must all be weighed here the interests of mr citizen family involved mr walker patrick has three united states citizen children and that has served the united states in military service his interest in remaining united states is high the risk of erroneous declaration of rights is high when in friends as opposed to evidence is substituted for a sufficient record of a substantive conviction for an aggravated felony the government's interest in maintaining such short cuts clearly cannot be a serious as mr walker patrick's right where the government has access to correct criminal records as you can if it resources out its disposal but let me ask one other question what's the constitutional hook with respect to his challenge to the aggravated felony i mean i think the most of it has to do with you know is it in or out of the year is a probation is that this where does it fit in the california scheme it's not readily apparent to me that there has been raised a constitutional question and any or at least the collar of will constitutional question your honor do protection has been found to be the equivalent of banishment or exile and when that punishment i inflicted without the government pointing to a stub certainty of conviction for an aggravated felony which is required under the statute to find a and alien to be an aggravated felon where that is lacking then there is no basis for inflicting the punishment of removal and in that case it is indeed a procedural due process violation to allow the proceeding to continue without accurate charges well you know that turns every place into a due process case because the challenge to an underlying felony would always make it then a due process claim under your argument when it wrote i don't think in all circumstances that would the definition of the offense did not meet the this court's definition of an aggregate felony those instances do not necessarily go to the fairness of the proceeding in the way that the government's failure to provide  substantive conviction as opposed to a parole revocation abstract of judgment goes to the very nature of the fairness of the proceedings and the procedural due process rights that issue because mr walker patrick has a right to have a fair hearing on charges that are sufficiently presented against him rather than making inferences from a non criminal proceeding as was done in this case by the government's reliance on a whole revocation abstracted judgment rather than a substantive conviction and i just have one last question and that is that we don't have in front of us the his brief in the administrative proceeding so we don't know what he did or didn't challenge on the other hand that i do not wish to waive any arguments made by petitioner in his brief because you said at the outset that you didn't believe he exhausted and so i was wondering what the basis for that statement  decision it doesn't seem to express fully addressed that issue i suppose it could be implicit within the decision this court certainly on the petition for review affirmed the aggravated felony conviction urge the court to find that petitioners and mr walker patrick situation she received the same scope of review under their transfer of petitions for review that they would have received if their petitions had proceeded in hevia and properly removed as an aggravated fallen and therefore that the court should grant petition for review  to file the entire certified administrative record of the prior proceedings which were proceedings for the immigration the original proceedings for the immigration judge the board of immigration appeals and then a petition for review to this court which  petition for review of course the proper record is the ministry of record of the proceeding so that would be that would it will be properly before the court as a proper record along with that of course there was an additional proceeding a motion to reconsider sort of that was filed so that would also be part of it but that would be the record before this court certified in this record as a petition for review i would point out your honors that not only did the petitioner not make this argument before the board of immigration appeals in its original proceedings but he didn't make the argument in the motion to reconsider that he filed that is not in the administrative record because codified issue preclusion a statute that says that if you have challenged your removal order previously on a particular ground and and the court has reached that issue then you cannot building and the government had to file a pleading i think it was on on the statute on the california statute the government filed a pleading in that case the court henceforth dismissed the petition for a view so that was attributed to the revocation of prole and therefore he didn't feel satisfied the one year requirement that seems to be their primary argument i would just simply point out looking at that record it can be found  the administrative record at two thirteen if you have that or the supplemental excerpts of forty seven but looking at that abstract of judgment we see very clearly in line one count the conviction abstract just in talking is clear that the crime was receiving stolen property and for which he received sixteen months after the revocation of prole we would also just in addition to that know that and that and the records regarding conviction and sentence are inaccurate no additional convicted crime for ninety six a was the means for probation violation  arguing that there was no actual conviction on december twenty third one thousand nine hundred seven he states it again in his response to the order to the government's response to the order to show cause in the district court and on supplemental excerpt of record rather it held that the judicially noticed while documents that would be required to support such an argument were not present in the record that is not true in this case in this case the documents required for the court to consider mr walker patrick from the superior court in california its like the section and then i was like sixteen months what more would you have to do well your honor the abstract of judgment is indeed a relevant document amicus is not claiming that it is not revocation of probation what is your response to that your honor i agree that clearly the prolification hearing and the sentence imposed at it could only occur after they've already been a substance of the fans because the pro