band and the i j a finds the police officer credible so why isn't that something that can support an adverse credibility findings put aside the convictions for nd just focus on back you're shifting back to whether or not there was reason to believe judge you couldn't quite correctly focus you on the adverse credibility fine we can go back to reason to believe in a moment but he says the policeman never identified himself the policeman says yes i did the i j believes the police isn't that a sufficient basis for it has burst credibility find not a finding of reason to believe he's doing our contacts but assume this is boars argue it was true they are completely immaterial completely irrelevant what's more material is the may two thousand and ten is that in that particular event the fisher testified it is very detailed and specific probable cause i just focusing on those facts we have a guy with a with a box the police officer says i think it's got contraband your guy runs he finds them they open the box of the inexperienced officers says it looks like marijuana to me now if this were review of a conviction i'd have a hard time thinking that established it beyond a reasonable doubt but we're talking about probable cause here why don't those facts give rise to probable cause me please the court my name is mulan essential and i represent the u s attorney general on this matter the court should affirm the denial of requests for adjustment as that is because essential evidence supports both the adverse credibility determination as well as the  colleagues statements i understand there's a tendency to see the inconsistent these as minor i would just point out that his criminal history and the fact that he presented a very big and disordered remembers of it is important because his criminal history is obviously so central to this i mean the events of may two thousand and ten are just another part of that criminal history which he could not prove that provide an accurate recitation nine during you know when he's asked about h i mean his consistency is consistently testifying in a way that reduces the severity of the criminal history and that is why it is not just a minor problem it is a important problem that weighs on his credibility also withdrew and said whatever he said about what happened on the or conditions on the three occasions it's true that after receiving clarification as to what a conviction means you i think he defined it as a violation of the love you know reported to the judge or something like that then he admitted that he had at least one conviction but in reality he has three the sort of like on that conviction and he still was not able to report anything about the  st conviction and also mischaracterize the latter two as cases that were dismissed rather than cases where he actually pled guilty he was not initially telling the court about the pm to be reminded that you know it could be a faulty memory or just could be a tendency to make his history of a little less serious and it also in terms of  oh no i'm sorry please please ask your question your honor here's what i find troubling about the government's case every test for marijuana and it's not available i don't know what happened to it no one can tell me on this record i guess sir if you've gone to trial on a criminal charge for this there's no way you get a conviction by somebody saying well look like marijuana to me is that enough for a probable cause yes your honor i mean officer marino testified to having twenty three years of experience as a police officer thirteen years of which weren't specifically in drug interdiction with trade working with the training canine he testified that he started training based on government deprived him of the ability to demonstrate what the substance was or wasn't why should we find that there's probable cause to think that engage in drug traffic i don't because it wasn't really that i don't really have a good answer for you right now and that question i thought you know it's just i think it's important to keep in mind again also you know the probable cause analysis you know the reason to believe analysis it's made by the and he has done nothing to challenge or undermine or just give us reason to question why officer marina was wrong to say well there was ten pounds of this you know before any but somehow i mislabeled it as marijuana despite all that experience  critical evidence in this case and destroys it maybe it destroys it innocently maybe it has no reason but only will we have is an officer saying gee i'm not certain but my face so much for us it sure looks like marijuana and the question questions that go to th amendment issues right i mean there at least this question does the the whether or not there was probable cause for a search of the body and so that question you know whether you know the th amendment issues are not are not raised in this case you know the it's clear that you know even in chavez races for instance where a conviction was overturned under a th on th amendment grounds the court still allowed a guilty i'm sorry i lost my train of thought but i do think it's important to just also stress the timing of this you know the police officer reasonable cause it out says and i'm a gratian judge is a reason to believe analysis i made a very different time and the integration judge in this case he had the benefit of officer radios testimony in court made under oath and the officer was saying you know to the best of my knowledge of this was marijuana i think that maybe it's what's called the due process issues in this case because you know about petitioner and then have the opportunity in court to you know raises concerns about the fact that you know what is your basis for understanding and evaluating this is marijuana and that is the place for him where he could officer rate after i know was in court brought into court for that very purpose and you know that is i think what do i do process protection that petitioners had had in this case may ask questions going back to the credibility determination by the immigration judge square those two things those two communities got an inconsistency that we should be thinking about you know your honor is unfortunately it's a strange point of the immigration judge's decision if you look at page  requisite ten year period of good moral character for cancellation of removal but he does have good moral character for a voluntary departure and i know what you're saying because if you go to the cancellation of removal section the immigration judge actually does say there that i'm considering that he has put moral character i think for purposes of cancellation the immigration judge was merely assuming that merrill character had been that he was not making factual findings in that section and so he did not really consider good moral character believes that this substance was marijuana it was never field tested in the statute under two hundred and twelve agency requires a controlled substance violate it states very clearly that it must be a