absolutely so i was just saying the case presents an opportunity for the court to clarify two aspects of the president the first is on the reasonable possibility test going to allegorize i do think that controls the disposition of the firearms charge and the second point is that i believe this this case presents an opportunity for the court to establish clear rules regarding when an abstract judgment can be used as the sole document providing that critical link between the charging document and the conviction issue so my three twenty one and our case involves twelve twenty two but the fact the matter is joining us alvarez the key analysis is what is the legal scope of the statute and in this case we have plenty of california cases applying the same the burden of proof and i think you know the supreme court in would be behind us everyone knows set out clear convincing and unequivocal as the standard of proof for the severe burden of deportation the only reviewable documents in this case  refer to them in the record of conviction because they're not certified by the h s or signed the court so they're not reviewable under the modified category approach over the course of ten master calendar hearings over an eight month period before a san francisco immigration judge in california the immigration judge begged the department to provide more evidence to support its case referring at the first master county hearing saying it's quote it is not clear lara has been convicted of and that is the crux of the case even months in january the court still confuse he says there's a disconnect between the charging document that was submitted in the abstract because the seattle the judge in san francisco does not mark admissions into the record on the date that the receive so it's a little bit unclear but i think certainly by may i mean this is the second to last master counter hearing everything's going in that i think at the very first hearing it may be that some documents are not been submitted but certainly by february i believe that's when all the documents are in the record and there are still several masters of the judges asking for more let's say we agree with your argument obviously hypothetical question what do we medina prevails on the one three five one conviction i think both counts rise and fall in the same document so there's no document linking the identity of the controlled substance and this court's decisions have held that eleven through seventy seven  overbroad so without that critical link all you have is an ambiguous abstract of judgment and that's not rule on something that's not before us right well i mean i think that if if the legal issue is completely back for a decision on the on the ag fell issue so the board has had had three opportunities to to address this issue and i don't think that there was any necessary it's not necessary to do it with you or me and in this case for that reason as your position it's not necessary to do a b now because you think of the futile and they had lots of opportunities to come up with additional documentation or is it or isn't that the legal issue which is you think they have reached it well i think they have reached they reached in the first decision they we can affirm for any basis in the record as we ordinarily could in a civil proceeding or example the law on the immigration context is pretty clear the snow before us we can't rule on it so of the  ground where they have that they've decided the case and there are some additional facts the fact finding or or legal conclusions that are particularly suited for the board to do such as in the issue of relocation which is the issue that insurer was about and this is not that situation this we have a legal issue that is a purely legal question does this abstract of judgment and bind with these these two complaints establish a basis for a move ability that's a question that the court can and should reach my client's been question the factual question being of course that the government wouldn't have been limited to just looking at the abstract they could there other shepherd eligible documents second compliant document if they could have pointed to so we are you really asking us to not we man because you think it would be futile they were given ten opportunities and they didn't come up with something i mean is that what you're saying well i mean i think at some point when a case has has you know gone on at the first stage there is that letter from that handy letter from the california clerk that says we don't do transcripts anymore because we don't have any money and that that letter is in the record so i you know i i'm not sure that there are any additional docking all right i think you've answered my question i think that was a no all right well all right thank you thank you complaint is very clear that the it was for possession for sale of cooking further the complaint is reliable because patients two twenty five to twenty six it seems that petitioner tried to get his conviction vacated in a superior  response apparently repeated was requested by immigration judge use to produce additional information about this particular conviction till one or more the record of conviction and the concern was i think that's california allows or amendments and and there was even a statement to the effect that it looked to him like there or her forgive me that there that that there may have been an amendment what do we do i think the council's argument actually proves too much because we're again having to speculate and you know the fact that the government the trial attorney before the i j a not only did he agree that they needed to get the s i mean the whole point of moncrief into scamps is that when you're talking about exile and that's what's at issue here for my client when you're talking about exile in exacting standard of proof is required and that circuit cases on abstracts that are decided by my opponent  are all cases where the abstract is clear and unambiguous and there's several loads of ambiguity here and that's why the court has to grant the petition in my view the other thing you know the government's admit the conviction part if that defendant in this type of a case admitted the nature of the underlying conviction wouldn't that be separate compliant i would need to ask this of qualifying for question on that court so in that in front of the i j a if a defendant said i admit that my underlying conviction was for sale of methamphetamine you think that could not be relied upon i believe that's correct of the case law you're you have an authority for  that not off the top of my head but to be happy to provide one thank you yeah al appreciate receiving and just one one final point unless the court has for the questions on friday again when i was preparing for this argument i did find a case out of california which i was just writing down sheller which is one thirty six cow out of fourth eleven forty three california court of appeals two thousand and six i will provide it to the court and to counsel it's not  directly on point but it involves an heirloom firearm so it's a firearm that's described as an heirloom the court actually vacates the conviction and remains for a new trial on a different issues that doesn't reach the issue of the earlier firearm but the fact that it was referenced as an heirloom and it is under the same statute twelve twenty two i don't believe you need to go there i think the definitional statute is what controls here but in the event that the court believes you need a case referencing the specific unhandsome and that would be today very much with that we'll stand in recess for the day and be off record