it please the court my name that's nancy phelim and i represent the petitioner in this matter i'd like to begin today with a quote from the immigration judge's decision with regard to the good merit of care curious to i believe that's where this case court does retain jurisdiction over questions of law and constitutional claims well let's jump right to it on the i guess i think you cite felt around toronto and i think government doesn't really respond to that and found below the trial court that to keep the court was precluded from finding good moral character where one had used false social security number for any purpose whatsoever so in light if it's not a matter of law since moral turpitude would be a discretionary call and as a hardship would you're out of luck right right we feel it is as a matter of law that that in fact good moral character determinations are determinations that are made as a matter of law as this court has s categories but this particular case it's unclear from the immigration judge's decision whether he is finding in eligibility based on one of the per se categories instead here graphs one through nine or if in fact he is relying upon what i refer to as the result will clause of one of when asked which says that for any reason not necessarily stated above one can the court can find that one lacks good moral character and in fact we are contending that in this case the immigration judge either in fact inserted a new person a category which you do have jurisdiction to review or that the immigration judge in fact we lived upon this capture all or residual clause if if i may call it that and wrongfully determined that the respondent or petitioner had engaged in criminal conduct and purpose whatsoever the immigration judge repeatedly referred to the use of the social security number they used to get a job they used to to get credit cards they used to get bank accounts used to buy a home they used to file income granted employment authorization during these very proceedings there was something incorporated in there to about his they'd be having unreported income or too much money or that that that what if you want to address that when it's very interesting when you read the immigration judge's decision and you read the transcript of the hearing below the immigration judge referred eroni asli to under reporting of income and express incredulity that someone could in fact to court a family of five when they earn between seventeen and twenty five thousand dollars a year and in fact have in the bank over one hundred thousand dollars but in fact they responded or the petitioner explained that he had recently sold a home that he had deposited the funds into a bank account and obviously he was able to live based on the profit that he had earned in selling the house and he further explain well to be very honest i don't see a great discussion of the hardship factors in here in fact i see very little discussion our position is that he effectively needed that good moral cure i'm sorry the hardship issue and i believe that the government is in accord with that because when we filed the motion to remain and the government responded to that they objected because there was no issue with no reason to review additional evidence of hardship because the case was decided on good moral character grounds and that's also a matter of the administrative record the government's position all right and they argue never ruled on the or the agency never ruled on the motion to reopen they did not they entered one ruling without opinion as you know and that ruling came after the far line of the motion to remain and so we can only assume that they were aware of the additional corroborating evidence and that they chose not to issue an opinion regarding that as well correct me if i'm wrong would be to remain on this for the court to look at moral character in light of still trans correct and the court still could decide he doesn't have that your client doesn't i'm sort of inclined to agree with you on that the court didn't really decide the hardship issue because the court said it turned on good moral character so you have got to be so that's what you're asking that's what we're asking your honor all right do you want to reserve the balance o the board looks to the fraudulent use with social security number in considering that question the question of good moral character and hell that that's a factor against and that as a result the alien bill john did not have good moral they are one fifteen right at the top he said i would find that the respondents have failed to meet their burden of proof for hardship because the hardship evident in this case does not in the court's view show extremely unusual hardship to the issues that the court decided that on moral character and may have opined on hardship but but didn't actually determine that that's correct when this case goes back on remand it will go back to the board of immigration appeals this case at page one thirteen of the immigration judge's decision you'll see the court discuss the fact that mr newman is in but in addition to using it to improperly using the social security number made a false claim regarding dependence on his tax returns and the court has begun i think believe it's called the gum sheet that the government submitted on regarding chatty versus ashcroft where this court has already held that tax fraud for the purpose of getting a tax benefit such as mr jimenez case a lower tax bracket or a deduction and to deprive the government of funds constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude that is that page one thirteen and this court has jurisdiction to review the question of law than that that supporting just any one of these reasons that follows then the court goes on to say also says on that same page he said i would find that's right a conditional statement not from finding that the petition was not a person of good moral character that the issue of good moral character i believe that's where this case turns to that's the court saying the fulcrum of this case is here i would make that finding that language is not found in the other section and in fact the other section is immediate fall of with but that doesn't matter because position that the hardship was never resolved so the court would have to go back and get the moral character and neither do it correctly and if the court didn't feel that the moral character was an issue think it to the hardship right that is correct and of course and  just be clear out of the court the board could also say because it can decide the hardship issue did note that it's it doesn't even you can it's not going to go to the good moral character issue because this case falls on hardship can work the proper  for the court would be we remain and four to forty consider this consistent with this stuff whatever you want but it's some point you want to get to is tax fraud allegations don't you find that to get it right down because in fact i don't think that the record would support a finding of cox fraud at all in fact the claiming of unauthorized dependents is not supported returns he never claimed that he was married to her in one nine hundred ninety when he filed the tax return in one nine hundred ninety one and she did in fact say he was married to her because he was they had married i mean don't you have to in order to social security alone and said other things in terms of will i see problems with you or it doesn't i'm steam discrepancies in your income i'm seeing all that and you'd be out of luck if the court considered all of those because the court could on a discretionary call find  and if this goes back if it were on that just to consider bell transfer auto that fight no stretch of the imagination means you when i mean the court could still reconstruct moral character or the court could go to the hardship and that would  whatever they decided to do write and write and hopefully they would in fact review the evidence submitted with the motion to remain and if that time ok thank you if there are no other questions to the panel this matter would stand submitted thank you both for your argument