when it comes to admissibility so once the petitioners counsel conceded in the case it became the petitioners burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence the time place and manner of entry i believe that the issue however however in this case was the fact that no evidentiary hearing was ever conducted on remove ability in a total of eight that were conducted seven of which were master calendar hearings and one individual hearing the immigration judge sustained the at  entering removal removal proceedings the petitioner had admitted that he had come in to the united states in a vehicle subsequent to that at the st hearing the petitioners counsel admitted the to the st two but said that he had issues with regard i know you have the testimony about coming in and i forget what the racial relationship of the woman was who drove through and he was in the back seat but he had prior sworn testimony in the asylum application that he entered the us in both the nineteen  and ninety four without inspection you dispute that but i think that there were a couple of problems that occurred during the course of the proceedings and including that so with regards to that that was really the only inconsistency that that did exist  testimony which was found credible by the immigration judge and which was consistent throughout all of the proceedings was that he was waved through and that he came in in a vehicle and that goes up into and before this case even came before the immigration judge so we're starting with the eye to thirteen and then going through pretty much every goes out of her way to make amendments to the application on other issues but does not make any amendments in that regard but let's let's assume that you went on that one what do you do with the cia empty conviction with white an alternative basis for denial i don't believe that that conviction should have been upheld because if he would have been found to have been waved through we wouldn't be into twelve proceedings we would have been into thirty seven dollars proceedings and the fact that the i g sustained this so early on in the proceedings that charge comes in about two hearings later but with respect to what we're that's a separate independent reason for removal is it not it is but it's also been on to twelve so the government would normally not have lodged that charge had he been to thirty seven dollars proceedings so had the immigration judge properly conducted these proceedings and allowed for an evidentiary hearing to actually have been heard if you look at the dates of the different hearings it's at the rd hearing on july th two thousand and twelve the i j a states the respondent didn't have any more evidence about being admitted did he know all right i'm going to go ahead and sustain the charge then since there isn't any other evidence of admission or recruit there did your client object to the ground in the hearing he objected and threw out at almost the through counsel if they did concede that charge ok so basically that's the nothing to say about that that's waived that's an independent grounds for remove ability right it is an independent ground but it also came subsequent to the fact that they had sustained the initial ground and i don't the twelve entered i'm here without inspection that should not have been sustained or at the very least an evidentiary hearing should have been conducted to allow the respondent to testify because the basically said based on your testimony that's not going to be enough but he was never even your part how does the sunshades family qualify as a particular social group under the statute well family membership could constitute a particular so for this case and this case i think that the asylum application there's issues with aside for a moment the issues about you know the driving through the border and the cia empty i'm saying if that were properly before and you get to the issue whether or not he qualifies whether the songes family qualifies as a particular social group i'm having some trouble with that because it wasn't just members of the sanchez family that were let go by the bank and it was parent but what problem existed that qualified the family as a particular social group under the statute while the threats were made against the father and i guess the threats were also directed towards the father and and that's why i mean i mean yes you know to be a particular social group we've got to be a distinct situation and several people were laid off by the bank just the sanchez family so why does that make their son to his family a particular social group i think back there was no evidence of direct persecution to the sons of the judge would have had to find that that was imputed to him to some extent there was still family members living in mexico let me let me follow up on that would what evidence is there that the petitioner persecutors attribute any political opinion to him well the argument there was that what there was an imputed political opinion against the family based on and if i remember correctly what is the political opinion don't i think there's a lot of flaws in those arguments with regard to the asylum now just because of the passage of time did anyone in his family suffer any harm and that's the father was threatened correct i mean to the extent that he felt that it was safer for the son to come to the united states and then we get back to the issue of how he came to the united states inconsistently i believe even in the father's declaration he mentions that the aunt was there and she was visiting and that she brought him back but none of that was ever considered when it came to any of your time i would like to represent  application ok i just want to clarify the government does not take the position that if you're waved through you are nevertheless you are you are not inspected kno that he wasn't well there was the sworn asylum application that he twice and with on spec but at the end of day petitioner makes a lot of hay tries to make a lot of it well but it was deemed credible but jean credible doesn't mean sufficient distinct concepts in immigration law so at the end of day petitioner still bore the burden of proof even if there was no sworn asylum application that he was if we were somehow to ignore a sworn application he would still to convince the fact finder via testimony whether that would have occurred or not i can't answer because that again would have been up to the fact minder and the petitions opening brief never complains that there was no evidentiary hearing so that raises what seems to be some sure due process claim is not properly before the court to what degree did we need to get brief point out there's a completely independent ground for denial internal relocation it was clearly made by the immigration judge it was made and fearne by the board petitioners opening brief says nothing about whatsoever i wrote an opinion called in saying that came out not too long ago dealing with the indian relocation from the punjab and indicated what it is that the i j and petitioner could have complained the opening brief while i don't like the process and instead of this case instead of neurons or saying being the case it could have been this case by not raising the agency by not raising it for the core the government has nothing to respond to on their prior policies the government did not agree that because of the to fraud convictions that this was likely to be anything that would fit under that and so this case was it was actually referred to be asian but i think with the extension there was a lot of talk about ok there's been talk about your honor but yes so much your honor so i think for the questions and your honor as i would just like to bring up that the that the fact that there wasn't the evidentiary hearing conducted on that that is whether or not it was particularly brief but i think that the sequence of events is significant and the fact that the government relies on the fact that then even if he has certain fears it doesn't matter because they can be addressed by relocation the government says that you never responded to that that was found it was you didn't respond to that therefore the issue was an ex