to bring in the portable facts the answer according to sprint court the federal court in the b i a precedent is no the parties agree that these conviction documents a lone do not have and mission and they do not have the finding about how much marijuana d mr bouck will head when he was convicted of georgia's offense at the best thing of more than one  but still not had any immigration consequences counsel you're arguing it is even if we go with the circumstances specific approach that there can't be any case no matter what where the police report alone is sufficient right well definitely not this police report ok well then let me let me ask you them about that because in this case your client told the immigration judge and i'm wanting to fourteen through two hundred and sixteen of the administrative records he was innocent because he didn't know there was marijuana in the car and he said three or four times i know there was marijuana in the car i didn't i'm sorry that i mean i know marijuana was found in the car there was marijuana in the car i just didn't know it was there so when you client tells the i j there what he's challenging is his intent but not that there was marijuana in the car the three pounds that the police report says that was recovered even in that circumstance the police report  in the in the front of the car it also said that there were three pounds of found in the trunk of the car his testimony at all times has been that that it was a rental car it wasn't his car and he did not know about the marijuana in the trunk now the the prosecutor must have had read with him because he was originally charged with possession with intent to distribute marijuana and three pounds of marijuana would would absolutely the support that more serious trafficking eventually pled to announce or more so in total that obviously wasn't the leaves on the console well it could be more it could have been announced in the car but it wasn't the three pounds whatever it was and this is the point when the prosecutor took a look at the police report it concluded that the three pounds was not enough because the prosecutor dismissed the more serious offense of possession for intent to distribute oh but i mean the prosecutor could have had many a criminal case and if you have a circumstance a specific approach it just strikes me you can't have a rule that you can never use the police report on an issue that the that the petition with you with all due respect in that it says that the police report him not only the only documents that can be included under circumstances specific or those that are fundamentally fair which it defines as quote procedures that you have an alien  taste the allegations of the system that mr counsel were not necessary to the conviction record rendered so they could not be used to support that a portable cannot is there any place is there any place in the record council where the pounds he never had possession of it well he says i was never guilty of anything but he pled to possession of over an ounce my point is that he wasn't putting into issue that it was twenty eight seven or twenty nine  wo he was telling the immigration judge i was totally innocent because i did there was any marijuana in the car well your honor and then here's a pretty and he denied it which is different than the usual lines and also where in the  did not contest the amount of fraud that was in the rest in order so we have the prosecutor disagreed with the police report and mr bogle himself disagree a leave us mot test is another case where the where this court in a post decision applied but even if this court does decide to adopt matter davy which he has the authority to do under several on even under andor matter davey the circumstances and specific approach he is not doesn't allow for police reports and that as that that woods answered that supports cannot also be used in the circumstances approach and another thing that's important about this police report that is not true in all states is that this state this police report is not accompanied by a verification by the police officer it also was not incorporated into the complaint which sometimes it is under state procedures those that edition and that absence makes this even less reliable than it could be  to other state reports so judge bit better question does what all state police reports be excluded i mean there could be a situation where is a verified or attached to a complaint but i would say given that that is absent here this one it absolutely is not if apart from some of the other verifications you've mentioned do really have all that the police had to offer your honor that's an excellent question as to the th circuit has said no   matters that are discovered and i would say in this case in particular it's significant that the prosecutor charged him with possession with intent to distribute which is if you look at the start of this report the only count mentioned is possession or intent to distribute at the purse page of this report and yet the prosecutor dismissed that count i think the most fruitful inference is that either of the prosecution had a chance to investigate they determine that the three pounds was either not true or not provable in either way that was that was mission fact for d the criminal court and definitely can't come in the back door in immigration court common generic crime but rather to a specific type of conduct committed on a specific number of occasions involving a specific quantity of a specific substance as a work on matter davey that practically call for an inquiry into the facts and so because of that lexical approach we would argue that the court must use certain tests because pro choice in this case is in addition to that moving on to whether substantial evidence supports the board's finding under under the circumstance approach that both of us more than thirty grams of marijuana but just mentioned earlier that wasn't in controversy whether you know there were two ninety four pounds of marijuana or enough or not mr bogle never actually tested never actually  contradicted the officers st person statement asked to that particular fact now opposing counsel may say that the police report was affected by their deficiencies but it doesn't matter with regard to this particular go the individual who gave him the backpack and he had met him at a club now in fast during his testimony he said that he did those individuals it was his friend tyreese and the thai reese gave him this marijuana in addition to that  the immigration has found that his testimony about the shipping boxes these very small shipping boxes was implausible now the boxes are very small there are eleven d by limb by limb inches and working back with my fourteen inches he claimed the boxes work to help a family member move shafting clear and convincing evidence isn't there you used the term earlier greater weight making me think you were more in line with the prime directive standard far more clearing goes to this particular question of whether there was a certain specific quantity of the marijuana of marijuana on the boat with possession and with regard to that very specific very narrow fact police report actually is a clear and convincing there is no doubt as to the police report with regard to that particular fact which is why it was fair for the immigration judge to rely on the police comport with regard to that particular question them so yes from underlying is our offense stablished a reason to believe that he was involved in drug trafficking and making him the civil under that particular ground and so to some of mr bone who was convicted of an offense related to a controlled substance and the person the succession doesn't extend so far as to cover him where the record shows and he doesn't dispute that he was found in production of almost three pounds marijuana and the government asked the court focus on that particular fact the fact agency weighed the equity in this case and determined that it wouldn't grant cancellation as a matter of discretion and that decision to not reveal the light of all the foregoing the government asked the court should deny it just and to the the solicitor general's brief that made it very clear that it was not weighing in on whether this is whether this particular ground should be subject to the circumstance specific approach or the portability so medina very much seems to be fair game especially was in two thousand and fifteen well after nisha one vote was was decided and supreme court probably held off for a reason nd point and my brother misspoke when he spoke about the shipping boxes and all of that matter that has the burden of proof the government agreed to that it's and it's in its brief and it's significant that when there is a portability granted not to the recent believes that there has to be sufficient evidence the use of a police report that clearly dents by the weapon in this man's car as being a gun be i a s said you can't go to police reports as a matter of fact when the d h s s has the burden of proof so the th point agreement between the district attorney's office and the defendant's counsel an agreed to by the court the defendant's probation was to be determined to be terminated after two years from the date of sentence of such a right yes but we don't know the contents of what he agree i don't know the content but your argument was that there's no evidence that there was any plea agreement just now well let that let me that you have it even if we if that is the order is we don't know the contents and significant that the police report