the morning runners may please the court then we singer on behalf of the petitioner gloria non reality leone to begin i want to make sure that it's noted for the record that my client is currently detained in ice custody she was not when this case began she is now the government going to have a hard time here getting around the words of the immigration judge in this case i'm just not believing this account and i don't have to give her credit for testimony for that reason alone referring to my client's criminal past and finally in his order the court is unwilling to give her any to give her any credibility the standard for credibility is not based on one factor alone it's the totality the circumstances and that's what this case really all about and i'd like to suggest that the guy in upholding the let me let me just get right down to the heart the least part of the issue on on the credibility finding there are several parts of the credibility for but the one that you seem to have to address most in your brief was j's reliance on her criminal background yes record of convictions yes and it's unclear to me whether she just have a couple of convictions for shoplifting  is a drug related conviction and looks like some traffic related convictions ok now that's all she's got then you might have some there might be some weight to your argument carefully at all the records and read the evidence and in the record it's not the r j says that she had such a conviction in the b i realize on it and if she did have a conviction for forgery at a utah i mean that's a classic kind of conviction that a trier of fact might consider in good reason we consider in judging the person's credibility the problem is as you're as you pointed out there is no evidence of a conviction in the record the only evidence in the record is that the charges rather dropped or dismissed well how do we how do we know that she testified that she had suffered that conviction she also testified i believe that she pled guilty to that and served thirty dollars to thirty five dollars days in jail for that conviction is that correct it's in there somewhere to that effect so you're asking us to question whether that existed or not but there's there's no she testified that she pled guilty and served jail time for we don't know what she actually pled guilty to there's again there's no record of a court proceeding there  we don't know whether there was pretrial detention and ultimately the case got dismissed we simply don't know the answer that question the government being in the best position to obtain conviction records which they did in other for the other  shoplifting issues you know didn't bother to look into this part of my client's past which in full disclosure includes yet another shoplifting conviction suffered this year well th whether the i j that has credibility determination is rightfully based upon this criminal history and the judge whom i've known for years simply you know latched on to this criminal history and said well i don't have to give your credit your testimony any way whatsoever for not no other reason but this and that is simply not the test for whether somebody says testimony is credible or not so in the i guess it's listed in the eye to thirteen this forgery conviction right you know what it's like it's mentioned in one eye to thirteen it's absent from another one the most recent one produced by the something but yet it doesn't she testified that she had served time right so that the record in this case is i guess to that particular criminal issue is simply unclear and i don't want to get into unclear burdens of proof mariano area versus going dollars and all that and then all the recent stuff because i think that had to do with convictions and burden of proof of eligibility for relief from removal this happens to be the burden of proof or time place and manner of entry and there's nothing in the record or the record does not have evidence to support the conclusions of either the judge or the board of immigration appeals in that matter and that in that regard well they just they just record of shoplifting conviction that probably would agree with you that those don't demonstrate tendency to fabricate and lie but when you have a forgery conviction that's a classic example of a conviction that one could look to to assess credibility and three there's reference in the eye js this is a little bit more up and ask those other questions if by you know entering without inspection one thousand nine hundred and eight and not have any current documents on her to show that she is lawfully admitted well then she is automatically removable and so they served with a notice to appear and so it's not surprising to me that all the end all the eye to thirteen reveals is an initial unlawful entry and then the end the n t a says unknown date unknown location that's pretty standard operating procedure for rice in the field they don't they don't get into those details and we don't have a record of sworn statement here like we see sometimes in asylum decisions when somebody st enters the country and there's a record sworn statement of they you know claim of fear don't claim fair and we don't have that here all we have is an eye to thirteen which you know is been held to be reliable in the absence of evidence to the contrary and here we have at evidence to the contrary you know my client testified that she later entered with inspection your honor if i may address that possibility  portion of the judge's decision how is it implausible that my client was allowed to enter while you know without being asked for documents but ms killen ton was allowed entente was not and they were allowed entry there's no difference here ok and yet the judge said you're plausible you're not possible ok and the only difference is my client's record that the immigration judges credibility determination here was supported by substantial evidence and i just want to point out with regards to the forgery crime she did testified during her merits hearing at page ninety four through ninety five of the record that she committed the offense by using a debit card that did not belong to her so you regardless of whether or not we have a conviction here she has testif the underlying crime of forgery or if a debit card fraud also the i just want to stress also that the government did not have the burden of proving the conviction because she is the applicant for adjustment of status she would have the burden to show that a mandatory ground of denial does not apply so that's why you have in the record her listing out all the possible going to grounds that i don't recall the what happened at the hearing but seems that if the government's going to argue that she suffered a conviction or jury that that is a basis on which to discredit her testimony and it seems like the government should produce the record not credible because well her story is implausible to she's a convicted forger i don't know what the government argued but she has all these convictions and three her story is inconsistent i guess the question then is did the immigration judge have to wait on documents to prove that prove up the conviction in order to make a credibility finding based on that criminal  belong to her that the credibility statute allows for the adjudicator to under a tally of circumstances analysis to take into account any relevant factor that impacts credibility so certainly her admission into committing debit card fraud without a conviction would be a relevant factor for purposes of credibility as she did testify though that she served some time and she did thirty to thirty five days in jail  yes and it does seem like it was a very old conviction which also might explain why we just don't have records for it you know even one dollar to thirteen dollars it's as dismissed without prejudice but it's hard to know what happened with that with that  it i would also like to you know if explained that you know the i j a can basically to build the determination on the fact that the applicants account is inherently implausible and so was proper here for the immigration judge to take into account that you know montreal's account that she was asked about where she went to mexico what she was doing there but was not asked for her entry documents is simply not possible  ask it would be ideal if that had happened but what i mean and i mean here you're saying is well he just knows he knows because it is he sees these claims in his courtroom and he's not seeing them with with any a currency as an immigrant without a valid entry document you're inadmissible and that you know that puts that says you know we are our our our border officials are asking for entry documents at the port of entry it just seems like common sense notion of how the border works that especially if an border official is taking the time to talk with you and ask about your going to mexico and your trip purpose of your trip that they would also inquire about your entry docking in one of her part of her testimony or i forget that you know if usually there could be a large crowd of people who are want to enter the country and they they can't because they could but you know they stop it i also want to mention on page one hundred and nineteen dollars is her written statement and it says during she isn't describing the two thousand and counter and she actually states quote i was not asked any questions so heard stick to her she you know is has an internal inconsistency or inconsistency between her written statement and between her testimony as to whether she was even asked any questions at all during that two thousand border and three this provides you know this it's a pretty glaring inconsistency that provides further evidence as to why the record does not compel the conclusion that monorail was credible in explaining the time place and manner of her entry  i also i don't believe the petitioner's counsel addressed it during his his argument but i do want to talk about the motion to remain under so that was filed to pursue cancellation of removal the board did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners motion to remain and in order to establish statutory eligibility for cancellation of removal an applicant has to show a number of things ten years of continuous physical presence good moral character the absence of certain criminal convictions and exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative but here monorail failed to file with her motion the required application for cancellation of removal as well as any supporting evidence that she meets the statutory requirements as a result the board was correct in noting that monorail simply had not the stablished a prime aphasia case of eligibility for cancellation of removal in view of her lengthy criminal history i do think the board on to the extent that relied on the forgery conviction may have been incorrect because it's outside of the ten year period but either way she does have a lengthy criminal history involving that the controlled substance conviction and driving on a suspended license here though she failed to produce any evidence of her own to establish that she had good moral character and might at this ample negative evidence about her good moral character the adverse credibility to determination and the crimes as a result she failed to meet her burden of proof for purposes of emotional brain and of showing a reasonable likelihood that she would be found to have good moral character in conclusion the court should affirm both the adverse credibility determination and that the motion to remain in denial for these reasons thank you ok requires or what would what deals with for example aggregate time in jail during the requisite period of the ten years the board's language unlikely to find statutory  eligibility in quotes clearly implies that statutory bar but denies remain and without allowing the parties to fully develop that record how many days in jail has she spent i believe it's close i believe is close enough to allow for remained to determine in the st instance whether she has to spend additional funds to pay for another application for which she may or may not be eligible so  lack of an application puts the cart before the horse in this case the board clearly just decided the night the motion remained based upon their conjecture without supporting evidence without allowing the facts to be developed in the record there conjecture that it was unlikely that my client would be able to meet the requirements that simply flies in the face of well established precedent of what they have of how a motion to rema and should be decided and the board as i said never said the words prime a fashion case i'd also like to this note that the last time i came back from mexico i wasn't asked for my passport and this is around believe it you know i'll pass all rivals santa seadrill as the busiest border crossings in the world by a factor of at least five the idea that i referenced this in my brief that the border patrol officers actually