pled to which was a conspiracy to import or exploration of iraqi oil against the president's executive order there's no of conspiracy has two different parts one with fraud and one without in answer to your question first specifically yes in the indictment it was clear that there was talk of forg for use of a better word documents that the origination of the oil came from iran instead of iraq and wouldn't that be for other that would be attempted for ye what the purpose of the certificate of origin yes i assume your honor that the is to ensure that it doesn't come of the oil the product doesn't come from a country that there's been an embargo stated that he went through the job worked for two or three days was not paid and was told that he did he was not needed the the hearsay statements which are the miscible of course  immigration court of the officer stated that the owner of the restaurant so the business was booming and that he needed him and he never showed up well start off with doc liens and i tried to count them this morning between ten and fifteen different tax liens now the the appellant was never given the chance to cross examine how could that been done by telephone by the by bringing him here assuming the government didn't want to spend the money based on hearsay evidence against unrefuted direct testimony of the immigration judge found for including moral turpitude crimes which has which the court never reached well except that it is going in the alternative if he is eligible for to twelfth the relief i wouldn't granted it's a matter of discretion which we can't review and be saying that you know to make that he is eligible for it i find his conduct so offensive to me that i wouldn't certainly could have been her reason even though it's not in their decision i certainly can't argue with your thought of why she said he would she would not grant to twelve seat but what i did say at the very which week fights my client not credible worth you could also take the position that's why she would say that in her discretion she would not grant to twelve i'm not sure which one how much time did you plan on giving a coke and i want to finish right now and thank immigration judge is trying to measure the petitioners level of religiosity and that's not the standard that we should be using we should be looking at what the persecutor with the thinking of how the persecut practices twenty five percent christianity and fifty percent nothing or whatever the formula is it's what the islamic fanatics in jordan will think of him not what church that he had a baptism in the church there's a niece who testified she's been at the home and she seen observance of the easter and christmas that the children are being raised point you know two minutes search on the internet so i believe that it's very possible for these records to come up in addition his cousin who was not convicted here and then are convicted and of sensing here in the united states my understanding is in jordan i think it's family knowledge that he converted to christianity so i think that it's very likely in a small village in jordan that they would going to divorce him there is children that are being racist as christians in the eyes of a religious fanatic and islamic religious fanatic i just don't they will not  briefly the issue of due process and touching on judge reinhart's question about the discretion credibility in this case questions about it extend throughout the case the judge is making a decision on discretion partially based on his credibility where this court to reverse the credibility issue then affect the entire case and he's not given a fair hearing he's actually deprived of the truth well see hearing based on evidence which should not have been upheld therefore i think there's a good process joy well i just the issue is that she did not show it again i don't mean to be repeating myself but basically that if you were to go back there's no evidence to believed as his religion when he returns to jordan and then there is the possibility that he would say that he would face retribution but if you didn't go so far as to say that an alien or i'm sorry a request of weather he would be subjected to persecution if  as you say they find that he didn't meet his burden of proof in showing that he would be tortured in that the record has contradictory evidence as to whether he's a christian or a practicing seems more to say that there just isn't enough evidence to show one way or another what would happen to him but i do agree that if you if the court finds that avoidance of the law coupled with the fact that the petitioner had promised that he would provide the fraudulent certificates of origin was enough to show that there was an inherent fraudulent nature about his action purpose of the dating and avoiding the trade poses prohibitions of the executive order and the executive order was created in an effort to protect national security and that so if you were evading and avoiding those l if if the determination that this was a serious crime is correct then does this core him jurisdiction to consider  particularly with regard to voluntary departure i am not certain of that my stuff there with regard to two twelve c e i believe that the the court would have jurisdiction and there's no prohibition to the that particular waiver anyway with regard to two twelve c the immigration judge and the board made the finding that he was not eligible for the relief because he was not lawfully admitted so you would need to look at that particular finding but if you find and if you found that that particular finding was not appropriate then you would actually need to remain and for the board to further look at the to examine the discretionary and most importantly whether the type and circumstances of the crime indicate that the end will be it will be a danger to the community was there any consideration given in the says the most important factor in deciding immigration or deportation case is whether he will be a danger in the future is there any case that says although we said that's the most important factor we didn't mean that you don't have to look at it and i don't believe so but there certainly have been later cases which do not in fact cite that particular factor as much as other factors such as you know the nature and the type of the national security case although not you know national security cases are the same they didn't threaten to blow up the world trade center he was helping and importation of oil from iraq instead of iran assuming it's a great difference in those two but there seems to be so it is a national security case and you could certainly say by looking at the nature of the expense of the serious offense but in determining whether you are an eligible for sorrow the board seems to have said that you don't just look at the crime but you look at whether the person is going to be a danger well i believe that you can certainly read from at least in my mind the immigration judge's decision and the board's decision that there is the potential for the danger to the community for a person that agreement to such an elaborate scheme and took such an integral role in helping it was something that he knew he knew for a fact was against the law looking at this person we think he would do it again if we released him if we let him stay in this country and if they said they have to be not which of course to me or they could have looked at him and said you know i doubt that this guy's ever going to do anything like this again he's probably the crime who's going to learn this lesson and then they might have reached a different conclusion but whatever they did whatever they said having considered that fact it probably would stand well there are the question of whether it can stand when they don't consider that's a very they're also is case law even from this circuit which agrees with the board's interpretation that if an alien is found to be convicted of a particularly serious crime that they don't have to do a separate analysis as to whether he constitutes a danger to the community or not that mainly is referring to in the context of the statute where it says an alien shall be found to be convicted of a particularly serious crime or  i realize that i'm almost out of time but the government's position is also that the court last year sanction to even consider the particularly serious crime finding there has been a recent case law issued to consider the particular serious crime finding but leaves open the question as to whether the court would actually have jurisdiction over the discretionary over discretionary determination  they did but that saved a buyer that he contacted here was a customs agent but i understand is the record show where they are was to be sold there i believe is references that it was supposed to be sold and in in a third country not in the united states but the whole kind of thing doesn't make much sense unless the document was needed in the third country as well as a main line of thanks but i thought it was the united states regulation well any any import any violation of the president's order would be a violation of the crime s i mean that kind of a status if you sell well from iraq to saudi arabia it's a violation of the president if you are a permanent resident i believe in all of this applies to american citizens and raging transactions anywhere in the world that's my understanding