thank you we are here today because justice demands that the government's removal order be cancelled the government's order would deport mr chavez chavez away from his family and the country he considers home to mexico a country that is completely foreign to him in terms of place culture and language so for years mr chavez chavez has waded in civil detention for this day the day that he hopes this court will fix the government's mistake and allow him to be reunited with his family the question before this court is simple do criminal complaints and the flawed abstract of judgment of the federal trade merrick offense how is his case differ while your honor i would point out that the docket she would be an additional document that is not at issue in this case in this case there is only the abstract of judgment and the complaints another potential distinguishing feature your honor is the fact that different abstracts of judgment have different degrees of facts so for example in this court's on bond decision in the  required that abstract of judgment specifically state that the individual was pleading guilty as charged in the information or as charged in the complaint this is the kind of abstract of judgment that lacks  facts there is no sacked in the abstract of judgment the abstract of judgment as count one possession of or transportation of a controlled substance nowhere identifies what that controlled substance i be possession of a controlled substance again it does not identify what the controlled substance is one see possession of a controlled substance again it does not identify what the controlled substance is and this is important to your honor because mr chavez chavez pled guilty to felony use under the california health and safety code and that is a broader than the controlled substances act informal amendment to the charging document and what that means is that the prosecutor and the defense attorney can agree that the defendant is pleading guilty to a lesser charge without actually amending the document decision i may have missed misheard you did you just say he did plead guilty to a lesser charge or you're saying that we don't know whether he did thank you for the question your honor i'm saying we don't know i'm saying that no one in this room stated not once not twice but three times that in fact he was pleading guilty to the specific crimes as charged in the complaint and the court used canta back to distinguish it from know that consistent with the paper that we have here in front of us that he could have pled or that the practice was to allow pleading to a lesser charge than appears in the papers because volumes look here at the papers it's quite clear to me that he pled to a crime involving math so how do we know that there was a possibility that he pled to a lesser charge that doesn't appear in the papers yes your honor thank you for the question i would refer to this court's decision in young beholder and twenty twelve that says that this court can look to state law to understand the meaning of the plea and here are state law would be california and there are multiple california state decisions that provide simply a document summary prepared by a clerk of court it does not necessarily reflect exactly what happened or what was decided and that's further supported by people of the west where it says that a california criminal court can accept a guilty plea to a reasonably related lesser offense and i think that that is an important point for mr chavez chavez well when you need some evidence that he did as opposed to that it might identifies the counts by number in the cases by letter and then when you look at the complaint you can tell that the letter means it was methamphetamine so if that's all we've got it seems like it's established that that's what it  that his date of birth is not actually twenty times that would have to be a typo i think because i looked at that data birth and he would have had to commit the crimes before he was born and i think he would have had to plead guilty either before he was born or stand up in court when he was a few months old and plead guilty or not very likely correct one typo and i think that that sort of opens the door to questioning what else might be less than thorough or less than complete about the abstract of judgment there are many instances where the abstract of judgment does not fully reflect what happened which is why this quotes on bob decision and the doll was so important because it requires that you not just have that linking information but there you have the phrase as charged in the complaint or in the end indictment i recognize that this court has created exceptions to that all however the fact that this case happened the underlying criminal case happened in california is important because there is an informal amendment doctrine and that allows and creates the possibility for the fact that mr chavez chavez is criminal attorney and the prosecutor informally amended the charge because at the time but we do we know that if california allows this informal amendment then he will not appear anywhere on the written record that there has been a pleading to a lesser charge  fact that the informal amendment doctrine exists shows that california doesn't require that and because california doesn't require it and because of this court's decision in young versus holder i believe this court would give certain the board considered in their modified categorical approach or establishes that petitioners convictions were riprap or which it is convictions really into a controlled substance and aggravated felony felonies the documents here as have been discussed are three felony complaints and one abstract judgment and the abstract or judgment when considered in conjunction with the criminal complaints provide very clear and convincing and evidence that in fact the petition in this case was convicted of possession with intent to sell and possession to transport which might not show up in the written record i believe talk specifically addressed that situation because in compiling talk there was evidence in the conviction records that in fact there was a people of the west plea in that case and they said because there was no sort of ambiguity brought up in their conviction documents which is the same situation we have here we have very clear matching between the abstract and between the complaints that there is there's no ambiguity if there was some sort of ambiguity if there is some indication in those documents that there was some sort of plea to something that wasn't charged in the complaints or that there was some indication that that's what happened then maybe you would consider that but that's not at all what we have in these conviction documents these conviction documents very clearly lay out the case numbers and the account numbers of each case number and indicate exactly what he was convicted of when the date of conviction argument about the incorrect birth date why should he send this case back for further fact finding i believe your honor that that was not brought up before the immigration judge or the the board that was brought up in briefing and the respondents brief specifically argued under baron that this shouldn't be considered because it wasn't brought up before the agency and it was just it's a clear typographical error that the clerk actually put the current date for the year but it was the correct birthday it was just the wrong year so that was that's certainly not enough to take you into the area we have been in big us abstract judgement it's kind of clear what happened and that's been that doesn't call all the other dates in specific very specific right on point listen the q and the cow column and in the crime column and in the section column about exactly what he was convicted of which allows the court obviously under and also under the torah as a menace case to go back and look at the facts that are alleged in the criminal complaints which in this case they all clearly say he did in fact you know possessed with the intention to sell to it said i mean and also in all three of the counts that we're considering for whether or not he's removable is either an i fell or controlled substance do specifically on or that if you have an error on there that that would it would you could look beyond that but i think this court certainly could do that because the rest of the documents fairly clear this is a simple typ constitute and then they give us a document that you would throw the entire document out i would sort of they'd be the i agree with you it can't be that he pleaded guilty before he was born or committed the crime before it was born how do we know for birthday is in fact july fifth fifteenth it's just not two thousand and ten i believe it's it's obviously you know roughly twenty five years one one way and you know it's the same guy as the birthday is july fifteenth that that's correct you are and there's i could look you specifically if you look to the felony complaints and it was the the d a numbers and the i believe that the case number also i mean those also match up and if you look to his name is date of birth is happens sometimes when people are typing they type the incorrect date for birthday they just impose that date which could be confusing it was also around the same period as july suppose i mean when you could also argue that but certainly and i don't think that i don't want to get away back to the record but i'm pretty sure on the record there was no there was no doubt that mr chavez in fact was guilty of something having to do with it wasn't there was never raised before the immigration judge i guess is i saying that this isn't even me i never did this it was always specifically the only thing that we've really ever argued about is the methamphetamine whether it meets that element and just to go back to one more point to make on that is a good example of sort of a an error that would make a difference would be the case medina lara because that's shows that in the abstract they where you have to something that was not on the complaint so then you did have that ambiguity of what was that he pled to and there was no plea call a cli to look to to confirm that we don't have a plea colloquy either but because the abstract is so directly on point with the complaint that this court can use the facts in the complaint to conclude that he in fact the substance involved was nothing for them and i said i will just briefly  anymore questions for me i would say that clearly and this court's precedent clearly say that you can consider that the complaints in conjunction with the abstract of judgment as long as there's no ambiguity is that show up and the one on duty that honor the government when it spoke earlier said that the three felony complaints considered in conjunction with the abstract of judgment amount to clear and convincing evidence i respectfully disagree  moncrief and hold sheppard and its progeny have required more for clear and convincing evidence they've required there to be factually rich documents such as a plea such as a transcript such as a plea agreement none of which are here i agree with the government that can to back matters and the reason it matters is because in that case the defendant pleaded guilty with the police colloquy and affirmed that he was pleading guilty to the same question the government did point to three cases where this court has found in summary decisions that the abstract abstract in the complaint are adequate however those decisions are distinguishable because based on the summary decision we don't know if there expect mr chavez chavez to say that's not me that's somebody else the fact that he pleaded guilty to these charges suggests that it was just a type of where i think that's what the government was honor i agree it's what the government was arguing and my response to that would be that the fact of the typographical error is a gateway that raises questions regarding th completeness and that care with which the document was put forward question exactly the question before you say it raises questions of i'm trying to identify a question the only one i could see was identity and maybe there's should not be removed from the government's order should be cancelled thank you ok thank you very much now as i understand it this was a problem i guess thank you very much for doing that the court very much appreciates the help we get excellent lawyers to argue