write i'd like to make three points to the court this morning with respect to the briefs that have already been filed the first is that this court has jurisdiction to review the immigration judges adverse moral character determination whether or not it was based on the nondiscretionary per se category of ineligibility do we have jurisdiction for a couple  some of those decisions such as the one in this case are nondiscretionary and therefore reviewable decisions the record shows however that at the final hearing all of the court's all of the evidence so centered on whether or not misty christie had a criminal a criminal record or criminal  another group prosecution to have this that's correct your honor that's what the record shows however one of the other points that i was going wanted to make this morning is that the immigration judges trial simply consisted of unsworn assertions that were based on unsubstantiated inadmissible evidence there was no evidence admitted at the hearing no mystical evidence demonstrating that ms deacon steel had there was no evidence my point is that there was no evidence interview start the final hearing that demonstrated she had any criminal convictions there was no miscible evidence that demonstrated she had criminal convictions on the other hand the that's the reason why we asserted and effective assistance of counsel argument which is that the judge the immigration judge focused all of his attention at the final hearing on whether or not she had criminal convictions under the court's isn't big it was on that subject but in one of the briefs in our final brief we clarified in a footnote and i can cite that if you need it that it was one of her one of her subsequently suspended by the state bar on a related related reason for basically abandoning his client's on immigration proceedings and she the court points out the immigration judge's decision was not supported by substantial evidence the judge's adverse good moral character determination was simply based on assertions regarding outstanding arrest warrants the only suggestion of those outstanding arrest warrants was based on the un sworn assertions of the government's counsel there was no evidence of a criminal conviction nor was there are substantial of it admissible evidence of and arrest warrant and it's for that reason that we contend that the judge's finding amounted to a per se finding as in no in eligibility based on the evidence demonstrating with the focus was on at the final as judge nelson points out that the immigration judge the mystique failed to receive her due process rights were violated because she felt received effective assistance of counsel and that she felt she objects to the immigration judges improper consideration of consideration of improper testimony which resulted in the denial of her application and her attorney also fail to affirmatively argue or offer any evidence of her good moral character instead the immigration judge committed the government just completely focused hearing on whether or not she had convictions or arrests and that all resulted in an adverse good moral character term nation or in her opening brief waives any argument because the brief does not contest the actual essence or not the essence but what the board decided but let me talk about the jurisdiction with respect to the first in point of the claim first although the asserts that the i j s determination that you fail to satisfy her burden of proof that she's a person of good moral character is a reviewable she's clearly wrong the i gate in no uncertain terms ruled and that he's finding regarding good moral character was not that he did not find that she was in eligible based upon a per se category but rather that given the convictions or not the convictions of the charges the arrest record which she herself the immigration judge says based on that even those issues and some other issues which came up essentially based upon the two arrests he said i can't determine whether or not she's a person of good moral character or  not she's got the burden of proof so i can't find that she's a person of that moral character i can't find that she is satisfied rather she i can't find that she is satisfy the requirement that she prove that she's person of good moral  yes with respect to that claim this court can't consider the issues raised by the petitioner ms alleges that her counsel was ineffective because the immigration judge asked for documentation regarding her criminal history that she gave her unnamed attorneys said evidence and was cooperative did not intentionally fail to provide the right requisite documents and had her attorney filed state documents she might have been approved all of these neverless matters w unexplained as the board found they didn't spot cite any specific evidence they didn't say what the what the documentation consisted of why isn't it obvious from the record if you think your staff you don't understand why  regarding the the criminal charges why isn't it obvious from the record that it was there in effect distance to introduce criminal charges that were previously not part of the equation well number one the petitioner has never made that argument then make it before the board and the board has the authority to rectify procedural mistakes so the court wouldn't have any jurisdiction to consider that issue and number two the petition counsel is under the obligation to provide relevant evidence with respect to the issue he's certainly not entitle to hide evidence and i think you can understand why i know i didn't say that i said i didn't understand why the petitioner makes her character you don't need to be convicted there's no requirement in the in the statute that you need to be convicted because the burden is upon the show that she has a clean through criminal record and because arrests show that you don't you don't have a clean criminal record an ineffective assistance of counsel the board found considered gave her a fair hearing on her allegation that she was in effect of lee served because she alleged that she provided her attorney with documents nebulous documents that prove now bulis things but the board quite properly looked at the that evidence or looked at those allegations and said well there's no evidence here that establishes that anything in effect of occurred because we don't know what the what she gave the attorney we do know that she gave  attorney some things and they did make it into the record she did not produce those records that she didn't produce the records she did not indicate the a why she didn't she didn't describe them that's that's the biggest problem she didn't describe them in an effort to convince the board exactly what whether or not they established that she was a good person of good moral character i mean all she says in her motion to reopen or in her motion for a man is that she judge at consider he just gives that arrest if she was convicted and they were expunged and they were thin the requisite period it would still imitate that she was not a person of good moral character and that she was i'm able to to satisfy her burden of proof now the petitioner complains again in a in a matter which is i'm exhausted that she was not allowed to produce evidence of her good moral character well there proper no proffer that there was any evidence that she was a person of good moral character i'm sure she was a nice person but she was also a nice person who had criminal arrests which in the immigration judgment mind and properly so let him to believe that it's possible that she wasn't a person of good moral character she's got the burden of proof if she can prove she's a good moral character good person of good moral character she loses and that's the end of the matter so there's again the petitioner waves any attack on the boards determination because she doesn't make any attack on that determination that i've just described so she's waived any argument she has with respect to the worst even if she had exhausted those claims to the board those claims are of no moment i very rarely say this but i think this petition for review now i'm not going to say it's utterly basis baseless but it thaws very short of the mark of the petitioner being able to carry her burden of proof with respect to jurisdiction with respect to ineffective account and ineffective counsel and effective assistance of counsel or anything else i mean it's really always difficult you know when somebody asked to leave the country when the illegal alien has to leave the country i feel for them because my parents were immigrants or my grandparents were immigrants but they are illegal  aliens the law must be applied and there's absolutely no evidence which would lead anyone any reasonable person to conclude that the courts terminations are very versed so we respectfully request that the court judge from quickly find it and actually as i look for that the immigration judge himself noted how ironic it was that the only evidence of a criminal conviction in the record was introduced by th