the trafficking the immigration judge in the record made certain rulings immigration judge ruled that the police reports which he relied almost exclusively to find that the reason to believe ground inadmissibility was proven under eliminated to a to c immigration judge went on and denied cancellation of removal based on the lack of good more character because of the reason to believe ground that the petition  was illicit traffic or in a controlled substance where the judge issued his written decision he didn't specifically state which section of law he was relying on he decided the general statute to the drug trafficking suggests that it was under the cattrall well that is obviously what the government has argued in this case but the problem and i suppose that's the whole rub is when it goes up to the b i a to b i a doesn't conduct any analysis whatsoever on whether there was sufficient evidence it just kind of makes that conclusion it's it in its decision and finding that he was an illicit trafficker and controlled substances so by kind of dodging the issue on the in admissibility but then finding it to deny relief that deprive the petitioner any meaningful review at the beyond a level and that's the whole reason i think the strongest reason why this court given it's been over review should be man to back to the immigration to be i and of ultimately to immigration judge for a new decision and i agree with you that the the board could have been a lot clearer in addressing the drug trafficking issue why isn't it clear enough from their statement that we are not persuaded by the respondents appellate challenge to the immigration judges denial of cancellation of removal because he did not possess the requisite good moral character and then going on a few lines later to say these equities do not outweigh the respondents involvement and they have the sick trafficking of methamphetamine as recently as june rd teen with a citation trafficking i think the reason is because if you look at the judge's decision on fourteen he cites back to his previous finding and makes the conclusion that he's not eligible and just cites the general cancellation statute so he's setting back to his ruling on the inadmissibility crown which relied again on the police reports which were objected to and challenged and this never gets any review really it's conclusory review by immigration judge he finds and says it's sufficient and then makes a conclusion doesn't those facts and that conclusion to deny cancellation removal based on well arguably on the catchall and that's what the government argues but even if it doesn't matter really under which section they're denying it it matters what they're using well yeah i mean to some degree yes i mean was never convicted of trafficking he pled out to i think attempted the session there's no trafficking element there so you have an issue where the criminal court doesn't  use any trafficking element there's no proof there's nothing proven there so i think i understand as a grief i understood from your breeze that the objection was that they didn't address his defense that he didn't know there were drugs now you're saying it's simple possession of frankly a large quantity of drugs versus a trafficking issue i didn't see that that was the issue in your in your brief which which is it i think we're making both around and you said it's a large quantity i think it's twenty eight grams which is less than an ounce so i think we've argued book that the condition itself is just a simple possession so that doesn't get the government kind of over the finish line to find that it's a trapping offen collaterally go behind that conviction he pled to that element and it's established i don't understand why we have to send it back to reason and something that is built into the plea well i understand i made originally which they declined to review but it's kind of a house of cards they won't review that issue where he made his factual and legal conclusions based upon that then they can really use it later tonight relief that's exactly what the petitioners argument is that's that's that's the nub at the core of our argument that that's not very fair and it's a due process violation for them to say well we don't need to review it for this reason but we're going to credit it fully  denying relief and that deprives the petitioner of a meaningful review of his arguments to be doesn't make really any analysis whatsoever and i think part of this gets into what the i j a rules onto and it's getting back to that if you look at what the immigration judge ruled he also crams the department of homeland security motion or preterm it if you look at the motion or preterm it which was early made that was based on a stop time rule issue where there would have to been  i think when the government looked at this they i think saw that this was an issue and they looked at the catch all provision to try to find a good argument why this matter should be denied of a conviction or good mission is things like as the courts repro to a large modern drugs if there are several reliable or crop rated reports if there's no inconscious participation and a long record of arrests none of that is present  when they've used reason to believe there's been very large amounts of drugs like nine hundred pounds of cocaine or one hundred and forty seven pounds of marijuana very very large amounts that the b i and the circuits have found to have the conclusion that there was trafficking here this arguably pales in comparison as far as the amount of drug so the admission of those place you ports which were objected to it's in the record i'm sorry was your question i didn't oh yes can you not hear me know good morning your honor you know use that for the attorney general just to jump in i would say that the be agencies here made an adverse a good moral character determination under the catchall provision in finding that  the financial status and lack of criminal record many of the factors are the factors that were cited by the board so that tells us that that's why they didn't specifically cite the techo that indicates to us that they were conducting that specific analysis and to your circumstances regarding his criminal records criminal history and while the board did specifically use the term of art a list of trafficking i think in it may have been there shorthand in terms of the christening what exactly transpired  the fact that the circumstances of his arrest he disputing the fact that he didn't know the drugs but he doesn't get the fact that what happened actually happened except the six hundred dollars of undercover police officer in exchange yeah i'm sorry the factual basis it was it's i stated attempted possession of dangerous drugs it's on page three hundred and two thousand three hundred and five the conviction record and there is a plea colloquy in the record at page three thirteen america kani my client knowingly tempted to possess a usable quantity of a dangerous drug that's entire factual basis and goes on to say in this story he has everything your attorney explained to me they're true and accurate yes and so we have the defendant's own admission in court as part of the plea that he knew that those were drugs and so i don't understand why we would have to send this back to the b i to determine whether or not he knew there were drugs i think it's not necessarily just that it's whether there was trafficking in the trafficking element ok because you're greedy said is that he denies there were drugs that he showed that he didn't know