good morning christopher standards for daniel vaska is i like to reserve three minutes for rebuttal i'd like to start off with requesting that this case be remanded back to the board of immigration appeal back in general has not well that would be incorrect your honor the reason why i went over one year is because of two probation violations both of those are specifically referred to in a non proton quarter and they court he was placed on probation for a total of three years and he was to serve two hundred forty days in the los angeles county jail that was the sentence that was imposed on october thirty first two thousand and two the order which is been entered  to mediation however where these types of issues have been resolved that is my alternative request i think that's a more appropriate disposition for this case because again as we would point out he's not the only ground that the immigration judge found the responded to portable hundred forty eight a cancellation removal simultaneously the court since our brief in backer and also in another case i think cited by the government in their letter brief  dollar's both of which came out this year in two thousand and seven has decided that issue against the respondent you did raise that there was a collateral attack to the conviction before the immigration judge you for the b i and before the ninth circuit so that's an issue that has been presented continuously that evidence has come to the fruition now and have you  a phone call to the office of immigration litigation they filed a written opposition arguing that there is this is new evidence and it's not properly before the court we're not arguing that this is properly before the court but that doesn't change the fact that there is new evidence and that's why we're asking first for revenge of the board of immigration appeals work where this should be looked at and of course we would ask for further enhanced immigration judge clear on the record is the  what happens to the charge was conceded in front of the immigration judge in the record in the administrative record on page one fifty one there is an abstract  look at the conviction document as it stands he wasn't sentenced the abstract is in opposition to what the trial and it show the trauma and show a sense of two hundred forty days and that through probation violation was aggregated up to at one point one hundred sixteen months not on record evidence that on record evidence also raises issues that were not properly exhaustive for the board immigration appeals so this court does not have jurisdiction to reach those issues either the proper recourse as already discussed for the petitioner would be to file the board in gratian appeals to sue a sponsor reopen his case or alternatively ask the department of homeland security to join him in a joint motion to reopen and these are the proper methods of recourse these simple but this motion to reopen is simply a way to attempt to circumvent the  during the immigration proceedings and the docking that he touches to his most reopen appears to suggest that this is what you mentioned was suspended almost as you received three years of probation and part of that probation was that he received two hundred forty days in this court that has been decided already petitioner is not argued nor presented any evidence that the original conviction was vacated which is the matter of pickering line of cases or that the sentence was in any way modified the original sentence was anyway modified or reduced satisfied with the exhaustion doctrine that they have that this might be a basis for a very limited remained for that particular issue the pale doesn't have any more questions i'll just like to conclude by again restating that the motion to remain should be denied because  thousand and two that is incorrect he was sentenced to sixteen months based on a probation revocation an april nineteenth two thousand and five his immigration hearing was in july two thousand and five when the abstract of judgment was presented  evidence they're not in the record before the court that's why we think the matter is appropriate for remain and so when the government is saying that the original sense of sixteen months and simply correct their reason why when all this that was contracted by the family in order to attempt to vacate the conviction which we had contact with and then later last contact with when we finally got back in contact with  restriction however there are two other avenues we can seek to have the government join us in the motion high horse and they would be jurisdiction or we can ask pursuers far today nonetheless and there may be compelling facts why this should be considered outside the ninety days know what's going to happen i'm not saying correct i mean there are issues of jurisdiction but what we're requesting simply is that the