procedural protections nor adequate administrative review in this case there are three main errors committed by the immigration judge and the board of immigration appeals first the immigration judge pre term in mr silvis application for that he was not clearly and beyond a doubt ok so i have a question for you yes the statute that says the following in that proceeding the alien has the burden of a  the alien no just meant by clear and convincing evidence that the alien is lawfully present in the united states pursuant to a prior and mission why do you think that's limited to the remove ability question and not also to the  he's allowed to seek relief from removal i understand that but that's what it says in the proceeding this is part of the same proceeding right and the question is whether he's lawfully present a united states pursuant to a priority mission so why is there a separate burn that's the way the regulations are written regulation this doesn't covered over the statute because they are seeking relief from removal there's a lower burden of proof on the alien to show that you're just asserting them but i'm asking you why that's true given that the statute doesn't have that distinction that train general regulations are as they were written by the attorney general your honor and they are the immigration judge is required to follow the regulations and in this case he did not the judge did not call the regulations he was allowed instead of predetermining the application for adjustment of status my client had the right to assert that he was it made it under punnets of the evidence and in patel versus lynch the sixth circuit actually did say it doesn't make sense in some ways but there is there is a reason for the separate burden of proof in that case the  clear he actually admitted it that he was he had never been admitted to the united states but then they said now for purposes of showing adjustment of status you need to show that you are not it if you want to use you forty five i there is a in my client was not afforded the right to show he was admitted and if the judge wanted to turn around and say under twelve forty point eight c i find he's inadmissible under eleven eighty six a eleven eighty to a six a that and then turn around and say and by  preponderance of the evidence which isn't generally most adjustment cases is what the immigration judge will do he will say you did not they did not show by clinging to missing evidence that you were at it and you're seeking relief from removal whatever the form of relief i congress as well that we have to apply both burdens of proof but in this case we have to i think it's over that seem to me to have the better reading of the statute but i don't know that we can follow it because we have this v regulations and when we don't that states has a dangerous precedent no no the regulations are fully consistent with the statute and we cited the statute in all of those munitions and it's in my mind for close your argument do you do you have a response to that other than the fact that specifically address twelve forty point eight but in that case the regulation is just a reflection of the statute it can't conflict with statute congress gets to decide the burden right so whatever the agency does in the regulation can't be in conflict with the statute so that's what i'm saying we have a case that construes the controlling statute in my mind that's adverse to your position i just want to hear if you have a response to that or do you just say no we lose under valid as me no again under valid as many as i don't believe there was any specific citation to the regulations that it wasn't it wasn't in conflict with what mr seale was arguing in this case is that it didn't specifically address whether or not the immigration judge considered relief from removal under the proponents of the evidence another example is like a lawful permanent resident cases in which they're charged with an aggravated felony once the department actually has to show by clear and convincing evidence that they've been convicted of an aggravated felony they're still allowed to se six on a you're allowed to leave the united states to pick up your immigrant visa at the consul after a brief interview and background checks and in this case he would doesn't require lawful emission no your honor does not it ways actually ways th court my name is don conrad and i'm here today on behalf of the united states attorney general in this case the agency properly found that mr silver was inadmissible under eight usa eleven eight to a six a i as an alien present in the requires entry without inspection that's just charge of inadmissibility with the shifting burden of proof i don't think it's the statute is not drafted in terms of a specific form of relief so what difference does it make if it's twelve fifty five and a vers twelve fifty five and you have to actually establish that you are admissible so you always have the burden as the person seeking some kind of relief from removal to satisfy show that you satisfy each of the eligibility requirements who cares if it's showing that you're admissible or in this will you still have the power that's correct that's correct so again i don't see i think patel is the correct reading of the statutory scheme it just happens it seems to me that we have requires admissibility it's both an application for relief and an application for admission and i in terms of the statute i am i as i was saying before i might read the statute otherwise because it appears to me th statute as valid as me you know says talks in general about vermeer persuasion with regard to it and mission but the regs to make that distinction so but no one seems to be challenging that so if we're going to apply those regulations as written why not that it is a case that is it is like an alien who is charged with an aggravated felony and aggravated felony charges sustained his application for asylum or cancellation or google is pre term it there's not a question we don't move to section twelve twelve forty point eight d what i don't understand that i mean it's it's it's only predator method means he's not eligible for it he's not eligible for it because one requirement of this particular ground for a lethal is that he had been lawfully admitted right so it's not that he's i'm not quite so i'm not quite sure what your question was it's not that he can't be considered for this it's that he doesn't have the requisite requirements that's correct your honor he thing the question is whether we know quote because you're happy you have to establish if you are admissible for adjustment status and he did not establish that there was actually a finding that he was inadmissible and that terminates his application for adjustment status that's the way the board does it all the time and actually his attorney but a lot of conceded that all the time handles adjustment of status applications when there's a finding of inadmissibility on on this issue whether unlawful entry without inspection ok yes your honor we admit that the board did not address his motion for reopen but it is our position that is harmless error because it does not actually apply to him a six zero one a what waiver applies to it i honor we have there's no harmless error doctrine that governs in this situation is there but i thought the law was just the opposite we're not permitted to make up our own grounds we have to send it back in the agency can so you say what i want on this well your honor we would yes regarding the weight of the evidence in this case the agency recently found that so will fail to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he was in the united states pursuant to procedurally regular admission following his one thousand nine hundred seven removal the i recently gave little weight to sylvia's testimony where he has a history of immigration fraud and what appears to be a fraudulent i five five one stamp in his passport additionally the agency recently gave mr sanchez testimony limited wait for his testimony regarding his one thousand nine hundred seven departure to mexico did not match the notes taken his one thousand nine hundred eight naturalization interview therefore petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof or clear and convincing evidence to show that he was admitted following entry with inspection if there are no further questions ok thank you thank you there's one main point i'd like to make about respondents argument is that she indicated finding inadmissible equals he is not eligible for adjustment of status that is simply not true the testimony under matter of kuantan should be considered by preponderance of the evidence and instead of the application for adjustment of status and your honors and in our current climate in which immigrants are facing such imminent removal without proper protections we need to make sure at the very least our immigration judges are providing proper procedural due process