immigration judge's decision first of all she excluded i she refused to allow of the testimony of a witness who was available mr burrell his mother in law who had relevant information second the immigration judge fundamentally misunderstood the significance of the certificate of probable cause that was used in connection with his guilty plea and third rather than wish me the legal mistake with respect to that issue and third the immigration judge made a legal error with respect to her the discretionary decision the problem is that when the immigration judge made that determination of no rehabilitation she made a legal mistake or her decision on rehabilitation was inconsistent with the governing  advances but that's it that's the only reason for the for the no rehabilitation finding that analysis that's inconsistent with what the board says you cannot take just because a person can test evidence  problem that's correct and if you do that as a matter of law or did she say you know i listened to your story i read this critical problem because and i still believe you know she did that i mean her what she says the decision is this case quoting this case turn on only one issue and one issue only and what that is she says is that whether his testimony is consistent more or inconsistent with the certificate of harm will cause we had no choice in other words but to testify consistent testimony was heard she said you know there's one issue and want to show only and that is whether you're going to testify in accordance with district of kabul army ask you this you know suppose she was just being a diligent judge and she prepared for the hearing s that's as far as she goes but then she has a duty to hear the evidence to hear the testimony of the live witnesses and way that testimony and determine credibility what she says in her again at the outset she says there's one  fundamentally incorrect with her that's the legal error that she makes when when mr viral up pled guilty it was an alford plea in which she says i'm not guilty but i recognize the fact that there is some evidence against me and the judge well she also said that she was going to hear him testify to see if she believed him and she said i don't believe and then he said i don't believe your wife and he had say what you have learned from my mother in law defective or inadequate analysis  additional limitations on jurisdiction beyond just the requirement that there be a constitutional callable constitutional claim mr of rather was required to exhaust these claims to the board of the mission fields and he did not do so testimony relevant to rehabilitation there is no evidence in the record about that that contention has never been presented to the citation that is not in the reply brief to support that assertion simply does not support it testimony would be and the proffer was that she would be able to testify about a conversation that mr for a lad are using when he arrived at his wife's parents house some way or day or to show that he had some criminal that he had credibility and that although the declaration that she submitted detailed you know the hardship business this event unfolded at the hearing he wanted her to testify as to how the hearing is to proceed and the immigration judge evaluated the proffer it was the record reflects that the conversation that the mother in law had with the petitioner a not choose to highlight that information or anything and the immigration judge concluded that the statements in there were false and she relied on a number of factors that were evident in the  document it wasn't i don't believe the immigration judge said that mr burrell had told his wife to get on the stand off i think the only factual issue that either mr for all this wife or the mother in law could have possibly contradicted with respect to the search of probable cause was whether or not he had told his wife that he thought he'd killed someone hearing that mr vaile that's focused on here the statement that this case really relates to really one issue which is his explanation for what happened really needs to be seen in its context that was a clue that occurred in that in the course of the immigration judge kind of discussing what the evidence and witnesses were and framing the case for purposes of determining how they were in for and the immigration just should not be judged i mean it's simply not fair to say that a fair reading of the record to say that the immigration judge had prejudged escapes me she heard the testimony it was not the fact that mr vella disputed the event it was the fact that he did not have a good explanation for many of the material elements of the crime is reflected in this just a probable cause and he did not have a good explanation for how the presentation that undermined his credibility when he tried to when when the immigration judge was asking questions well you know why did you plead guilty you know if you remember making the statement his answer was that i don't remember i don't know  i can't remember and she didn't take it then the immigration judge was entitle to disbelieve that especially in light of the record of convictions reflecting that certifications from the lawyers and the judges that he had an opportunity to read it  spanish machine and that the record reflects that it was translated to him by an interpreter and that he understood and so it really eased his testimony just didn't hang together did he he was attempting to the immigration judge was the type of include that he was attempting to diminish his his role in the crime and to avoid the consequences of his behavior in order to to obtain a waiver and the rich just concluded that you know in light of that he really wasn't showing remorse or rehabilitation and there were other adverse factors that outweighed the factors that he advanced for me because your mind my time's up thank  you i would just like to make one or two brief comments first of all mr burrell a clearly did acknowledge his role in this offense it's not as if he said it didn't happen he did confess that he was not the aggressor but he admitted that he had attacked the victim three forty seven we specifically state we have an objection to the immigration judge excluding or not allowing mrs matheson mother in law to testify on appeal to the board of immigration appeals then there were there were two occasions in the brief where we object to the exclusion thank you thank you thank you