prove good moral character so isn't the burden upon him if there's some ambiguity here that you know the government puts up to have what would appear to be some serious charges concerning his character a for him to clear this up and show conviction documents are not appropriate i mean the government isn't completely neutral here and in all of these aggravated felony findings that the burden shifts for the government to then produce admissible conviction documents we went before the immigration service and we said you have a complaint you have a huge issue of conviction document it's not sufficient under and i think a lot we believe we've met are finding the burden at that point shift for the government to produce something so i recognize there's no question this is not like you know removal proceeding where clearly burdens on the government he has the burden is on additional to produce good moral character but once he produces all the traditional conviction documents i believe the burden shifts to the government to do something and you know i mean obviously i look you might have situation you are you're considered a principal so i don't think again we're going back to a model of exactly that's what to do in specificity i don't think that that probation restriction statute is really trying to sting wish somebody who sells that could be done would be i think there's an issue as to whether or not who had the burden of perhaps producing one document that would clearly resolve this issue which would be the plea transcript i mean i don't have it i don't know what it says it could be fatal to my claim but that would for the attorney general i'd like to start by addressing the burden of proof and the burden of proof here is clearly on all husseini all of the cases so i did in the very first and all of the cases that i'm aware of in this where the alien is looking for a benefit from the government looking for naturalization and the burden of proof under the law is clearly on the alien to show that he has good moral character so to the extent that there is any ambiguity with prior conviction it was his burden to come forward with something to show that the that the prior conviction was not an aggravated felony and that's true can you cite any authority  the charging document combined with the abstract of judgment was found sufficient under the modify that it work will approach your honor there's no case that i know of with that precise combination but i don't think that that's controlling here i think that the point is that this court's case law analyzes the documents that are available and says based on these documents can we because the construct of can be proven in the in the alternative and then the abstract of judgment simply decides the statute and your honor i unfortunately cannot address whether under california law th felony in cases where the government has the burden of proof all of the cases are talking about either sentencing and we spoke with you on that position his position is that he has the burden with your bird to go forward or something like that a naturalization case where the alien is looking for a benefit from the government the law clearly says that the burden is on him here at the dock immense on their face show that there was a conviction for an aggravated felony and to the extent that there was any ambiguity it was his burden to show otherwise and the government agrees with the district court that because the charging documents said so and offered to sell that he was convicted of the sale but if this court disagrees with that it can look to the additional allegation that husseini pled to which isn't in section twelve zero three point seven three which clearly says that any person who is convicted of violating section one one t is a felony under federal law that wasn't the government's theory and it wasn't as you say and maybe we just need to remain on that because there are these complications as to what would under california whether for example  three point seven zero seven right well that wasn't too terrible as i understand it was the district court did not rely on that at all and you know still not that's that's not that that hasn't been argued in any any great substance and in the briefs but just looking at the statute the statute is not ambiguous the statute talks about selling a certain quantity of cocaine so i don't know that remained would be appropriate there i do i would point out i do have to admit that there is ambiguity with respect to which count of the information husseini admitted to this this additional that he did admit to the allegation that twelve a three point seven three applies it's just that there's there's ambiguity at least in my mind as to which which count it fell under i don't think that that's controlling but i just did want to point that out if the court is inclined to r and but but again our position is that remain would not be appropriate here the burden is clearly on all husseini does not meet his burden and there's no reason to give him another chance to meet his burden government came forward with documents that on their face showed an aggravated felony and he has not he has not let me just be clear your argument that on its face it showed an aggravated felony because the information said and because the it's because the information said and although if the court disagrees with that there's still the twelve o three point seven three b one which makes it clear that he admitted to selling cocaine i don't think that the  end just not really important anything because it can be proven either way then i think and that's not very informative then i think the court would have to look to twelve o three point seven three which the district court did not do address that in any detail it certainly has not been raised before today in this case if that's if that's if what is before the supreme court could affect the application of twelve o three point seven three in this context then perhaps that was that it well our argument is that he pled guilty of three counts of selling and offering to sell and if it turns out that that that the and is meaningless under california law  are back up argument would be that twelve o three point seven three clearly states that he sold a certain quantity of cocaine there's absolutely no ambiguity there and he came forward with no evidence before the agency or the district court to show that somehow despite the fact that he admitted to that he didn't he was not convicted of selling cocaine thank this much room in the abstract judgment so it can't specifically define the kind of conduct and number two the complaint clearly was drafted sloppily it is not is not done to define the conduct it was