family became the head of the family one day he and another young man made a mistake for which he has regretted ever since he was arrested and charged with burglary to an auto he pled guilty was given probation which he successfully completed volunteered a food pantry made saying you can't just call an issue of fact an issue of law it's like calling a donkey's leg a tail a leg still as only for right is there any concrete response to the government's jurisdiction so is there any other argument would argue that is a violation is due process how this procedure on it's a violation the regulation of the violations the due process argument your brief seems to say there was a violation of regulations and everybody elation of regulations violates the due process clause the supreme court held in could chairs but that argument is frivolous as a matter of law and of course frivolous arguments don't engage or jurisdiction either is our position that it is a violation of due process with due respect to the cases you cited your honor and to this court because he the government do you not have any support your brief doesn't mention the chair us right it's a nine to nothing decision of the supreme court it says to violate of regulation is not to violate the constitution now maybe you've got some response but ignoring adverse supreme court president doesn't or doesn't persuade us you've got a serious corner short naps of i could move forward to other issues the government also contended that he would been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude it's our position that he was not and further that if he is supported that he faces a clear probability of persecution and has a well founded fear of persecution  convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude nevertheless even if the court were to disagree that section twelve fifty two eight you see applies it should still deny the petitions for review and regard much probability of disagreement yes your honor your honor petitioner raised an issue of whether or not the department of homeland security met its burden to establish the attlee image and for a number of reasons the court should reject that argument it's notable that in petitioners brief he fails to actually argue that he is not a citizen of mexico and said the petitioner quibbles with the evidence from light upon by the agency to sustain the charge  and as the first circuit has recognized it's questionable whether or not this court has jurisdiction to review such a challenge where the petitioner is merely quibbling with the evidence relied upon by the agency rather than raising any sort of s argument that he is not an alien is charged nevertheless the court need not reach this jurisdictional issue the record in this case conclusively establishes that this petitioner is a native and citizen of mexico and his testimony he testified that he was born in durango mexico and that he is a citizen of mexico moreover as the agency recognized the petitioner filed a post conviction petition with the illinois state court challenging  his conviction on the ground that he was not warned of the nearly certain immigration consequences as the agency recognized there would be no reason to file such a petition if this petitioner were not an alien and finally as the agency noted there w form two hundred three in the record noting that this petitioner is a native and citizen of mexico who enter the united states without inspection your honors for all of their with reasons the agency properly concluded that the charge of alien age w established furthermore this particular burglary conviction is a crime involving worlds who pursued and the agency properly employed the modified categorical approach to reach that conclusion the board has long  decision and has she she can solace the court concluded that that as defined under illinois state law as categorically a crime involving moral turpitude so here you have that element satisfied you have burglary undertak and constitutional claims none are presented and the petitioners opening brief the court has held that in arguments that the agency's decision is not supported by enough evidence is not a question of law and is not a constitutional claim and here you have the agency denying the applications first silent and withholding of of removal based on the conclusion that there was no nexus between the fear of harm and the proposed as social that's a factual determination that this court refused for substantial evidence as a result to petitioners arguments challenging that finding do not present a question of law within the meaning of section twelve fifty two a to  and addition your honour's as to the application for protection under the convention against torture i would like to acknowledge and clarify that my brief does include an error on that point this case does not involve convention it involves withholding of removal and this court has concluded that section twelve fifty two eight to see applies to applications for withholding governmental under the convention against torture so again the court must consider what kind of challenge to the denial of relief under the convention is the court being presented with and here again the challenges the substantial evidence challenge the petitioner argues that the agenc denial of the application of the under the convention is not supported by enough evidence and here again that's not a question of law within the meaning of eight sec eight u s c section twelve fifty two a two  finally your honour's although the petitioner does raise various constitutional challenges and his opening brief none of them are sufficiently colorable to provide this court with jurisdiction the petitioner presents an eighth amendment challenge that was rejected by this court and some more i'm a lhari for you casey in that case the court concluded that removal order is not an excessive find within the meaning of the eighth amendment nor does it constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the eighth amendment because you're not dealing with a criminal conviction finally as the court noted a claim that the agency violated a regulation is not grow as regulation stranger doesn't trenchard's regulations trade yes your honor that's correct and what the constitution provides and to vigils like this petitioner with is the opportunity for a full and fair hearing on the charges for mov ability and any applications for relief and here that's precisely what the petitioner received he was represented by counsel throughout his one move of proceeding he received an opportunity to challenge the allegations of a movability and he certainly received the opportunity to present documentary evidence and testimony in support of his applications so for that reason this petitioner did receive due process as to the argument regarding voluntary departure that's a form of relief that simply was not requested before the immigration judge at most at the beginning of the removal proceeding this petitioner did indicate that he would apply for voluntary departure during the merits hearing but he simply failed to do so and moreover he failed to present any evidence designed to demonstrate his eligibility for voluntary departure so as the board properly noted and the arguments that the immigration judge aired by failing to consider this petition or provide for a voluntary departure was waived and even if it were not waived the regulations governing ballance carry departure provide that any grants a voluntary departure terminate its whenever the petitioner files a petition for review so here even if this petitioner had received voluntary departure that relief would have terminated when he filed a petition with this court so for that reason even if there were a due process error concerning