prosecution you can answer the question in your honor there are basically three reasons that the district court decided not to follow cases and that is based on his prior criminal history and mr sutton i would suggest to the court took that into account and one of the ways that you can tell that is if you look at his affidavit you'll notice that he compare s and we do have verification against this that under us eleven sixty that being said we don't have any other verification except the information that was given when the census report was prepared in this case that was because the first that we immigration judge we have looked at in one thousand nine hundred seven and deciding whether or not to grant mr relief when we see these cases in the immigration context normally it's an individual with one or more u s citizen children  perhaps even a u s citizen or lp or spouse parents or grandparents health issues of family members that sort of thing and none of these seem to points to this one is i am not at this point in time excuse me talking about whether or not he was more likely than not to be granted relief or whether there was an abuse of discretion by the b i am not granting really the claim i don't believe the corps looked at it that way i think the court decided more or less that this was a person that the court may not have granted probably would not have granted relief to and so use a different  played the possible ground standard in this case the court stated that factor that that was the correct standard of review for the purposes of this particular issue and then the court also went on to state that in this case where the defendant has  it seems to me this case would be a lot easier but that's not the standard is that now your honor the standard is possible but at the same time you know that's in the order of quantum of proof that someone has to me concrete evidence to show that the that the outcome of of his removal proceeding would have been affected so whether you use the word plausible or worthy use the word prejudice and insofar as the defendant shows that the outcome would have been affected standard you don't have to say it's likely he would have received relief or possible that he would be this leave really that's some little bit i can to the standard for granting a certificate of appeal ability has a serious criminal history he has to show outstanding or unusual equities existed at the time of his removal proceedings otherwise he simply will not be considered for relief in the exercise of discretion and in spite of the expert practitioner a former immigration judge or you know anything like that no your honor and i don't believe that that's necessary in this case because although the defendant is relying on the expert testimony and and he also mentioned in his brief relief so we certainly need don't need to look for more convictions or more record for those cases the case is presented by expert yana yes again but we don't we don't know because this is a balancing test we need to have everything put it into perspective it may seem that they have worse criminal histories we don't know their length of residence we don't know what their significant family ties were we don't know what kind of employment they had those individuals could have entered at the age of wanting and may have only spoken english and may not have had family in other countries those are all factors that a court takes into consideration to determine that to determine the unusual or outstanding equity part of this analysis that the government  compare one person to another is almost an origin apples analysis we need to simply look at what kind of equities did this person have in one thousand nine hundred seven and that first blush would that have been enough to sustain a showing of these outstanding or unusual been in this country for approximately fourteen years six of those years he spent in egypt in criminal activity so although he had a lengthy residence at least a quarter of that time is marked by using agent in criminal activity and being incarcerated children now and and i believe a spouse so if he were in front of an immigration court today he might very well have a possible grounds for to toss your leave but in one thousand nine hundred seventy simply did not have these activities and again question in other cases where you're trying to decide the possible ground and use and you need to sort of hone in and focus on the immigration proceeding at the time that it would have occurred at the time that the defendant would have and it's one in nine hundred ninety seven  the expert in this matter we can talk about what we know about immigration law what we think about it but the reality is the person who is really in the best position here was mr bolton because he has worked in immigration field for so in the transcript to answer a few questions for the court the court didn't want that the government didn't ask for it and this is full time had to work with the reality that at the time that we filed this mister and this was in the previous court record had been removed from the u s so mr tung worked off the record that he had the information that he had yet to make a decision based on information that he had asked to whether or not if you were to represent him in court he might have a shot at