i'm not normally known as a quiet person at any rate we are here today to determine whether or not mr bonner ranko was convicted of a crime of violence in order to subject him to deportation mr bonner ranko has been a legal permanent approach the court acknowledged a notice of additional case law that was received this morning it was received by me at about eight o five this morning regarding a case that i have i was previously unaware of i don't intend to open discussion on the merits of that particular case at this point other than to note that this is not the position of the government until eight o'clock this morning and i think that the government had considering the case was published in two thousand  the government certainly had plenty of time to marshal its arguments and present it to the court before eight o'clock this morning well let's just go on the theory that was has been in the briefing all along why aren't the documents to which we may with first sufficient to demonstrate the actual i think your honor the primary document that we look at is the judgment of conviction and what the court based the conviction  on the judgment of conviction itself never references the plea agreement or the criminal information and the plea agreement does not use any indication that there was a violent force used and in fact it references a criminal information that will be later developed so at the time mr bond or ranko signed that plea agreement he did not know that the government he did not necessarily know it's not in the record nothing in the record demonstrates that mr von durango had any has been the government's obligation to clearly establish that the crime was a crime of violence and i think the case law is pretty clear that the documents relied upon for that understanding a later court must be able to look at them and unequivocally understand that the conviction was for a crime of violence and that the defendant pled guilty to underlying facts made that finding he made that finding your honor based upon the notice to appear that was submitted by the immigration and naturalization service gets to the so my next question which is the standard of review if the immigration judge was satisfied based on the record evidence that we can look at that the inference could be made that was a charge to which he pled guilty don't we have to find that it is clear air in order to overturn that no one reasonable fact finder could have made that determination on the basis of that evidence well and your honor i think what we need to look at and yes i think it is clear error but i think based on the notice to appear which is what the immigration judge based submission to the information in the notice to appear that was issued by the immigration and naturalization service that document has nothing in it except for the generic terms of the statute it does not re any underlying facts ok that's pretty clear both from the colloquy between mr bundy ranko and the immigration judge and also from the opinion itself the only document that is referenced in relation to th was in the record before the immigration judge why isn't that the actual use of i am not sure that every link in the chain that that is what he pled guilty to is in the record your honor and i base that upon the judgment of conviction which reference is now i think that criminal information nor the plea agreement that mr bond or signed it references in later it references july nineteenth don't know and because the burden here is the government to clearly establish every element that would make this a crime of violence then it is the government's burden to put that information into the record i've lost my tabs you're aware of the where's the judgment  crime of domestic violence the gentleman was charged and convicted of simple battery simple violence and part of his sentence was fifty two weeks of domestic violence counseling and the court said well we can infer that it's a crime of domestic violence inferences are not enough we can infer that that is the criminal information that the conviction was based upon my position is that it was the government's obligation to clearly the crime i don't understand why that's not enough well i think your honor the link that we are missing here is that we do not have a record of what happened when mr bonner ranko appeared for the court scene for the first time what the criminal information actually said  agreement that when he signed that the criminal information did not exist we do not know whether or not mr pondering co had any idea that it would include the words by kicking we do not know whether or not mr bonner ranko challenge that when he six weeks and i understand that your honor and i think the point i am making is that we do not know what happened on july nineteenth lee we do not know what happened when mr banta ranko appeared having that criminal information in front of him for the first supposed to think about what might have happened or who said work to home we have to look at the documentation i have the documentation demonstrates that's the end of it well and i think that i think that's in line with my point your honor which is all of the documentation regarding what mr ponder ranko actually pled to is necessary in order to determine whether or not he actually agreed to the words by kicking my position is that this information is information that the government boy the burden of putting as a general point of information i would like to just let the court know that there are additional issues as to whether or not there's sufficient record of the violence of this particular crime to be considered here there's a certainly a lack of cont misdemeanor under the prioress galon decision they undertook the same type of the now to indicate the california had a more stringent statute the conduct at issue was of a more serious nature