persons smugglers and the specific requirements that are necessary to find a person to be a smuggler that statute are and knowingly encouraging inducing eating assisting or abetting entry into the united states that requires if you construes terms together as is the purpose of hers to stash reconstruction you construe terms together require some conscious action by the petition that for the mother and her mother and father who paid for the son that's correct run of the mother father paid and there's no indication that she wouldn't have come into the country if mr moran hadn't been able to borrow money from his boss to contribute to the payment the question would be whether the parents would have paid the entire amount or whether there would have been some quad long face thing this is ran in her sign if they were able to come up with the money but they would have already been in the country and that is the critical issue under the statute the statute requires again admit that mr moran sufficiently exhausted his remedies before the ira because he in his press they greet generally addressed the fact that the evidence did not support the finding any specifically the court generalists it generously construe as per se briefs in favor of finding exhaustion and we respectfully request the court did so in this case as well also i would point out to the court that the government squarely addresses the alien smuggling cancellation of a move all the immigration judge that the hearing was for the purpose of the term and whether he was here legally and similarly the notice to appear that he received raised only that issue therefore mr moran had no reason to believe  counsel that hearing it was an uncontested issue the admitted he was here illegally and it was unfair for the invasion as to sensually secretly adjudicate the question of his eligibility for cancellation of  removal without counsel all of which was prejudicial to mr moran the third point that i would like to address is the immigration judge is incorrect conclusion that mr moran entered the country in one thousand nine hundred two the record clearly shows that while the evidence isn't doesn't crystal clear here with regard to the timeframe as officials counsel mentioned of course you should keep in mind the fact is that it is to uphold the her parents called me to tell me that they were already in tijuana and he said that he knew that he was expected to have the money to pay the smugglers that time so it's ten point at some point in the summer and contacted her parents from t i wanna her parents in the united states or parents that time were living with her husband and at some point the parents contacted the husband and said we're need to make an might together and mr moran agreed at some point he then did speak with the with the smugglers and he did testify that that was once they were in the united states and he said he was going to have the money so illegal return right however he did he did on several occasions in this testimony state quite clearly is the immigration judge after a number of questions that yes indeed he understood that the only way his wife was going to return him to united states was with the use of a smuggler doesn't indicate that she's going to come back in any legal way whatsoever on he doesn't he doesn't testify that he told his wife why don't you apply for  the course you find there with me without merit for a number of reasons first as the as the court mentioned these these issues were not raised before before the war and therefore not exhausted second  without merit that's for a number of reasons first of all the judge explained very clearly to the petitioners at the outset of the hearing that they were entitled to counsel the judge then upon consequences even if they were to obtain a lawyer at the end of that hearing and and be represented from there on the judge repeated questions regarding smuggling and to store the kandersteg the petition was response and i think this is  represented by the record that the judge asked the question is a number of time and trying to really ascertain whether or not the petitioner had encouraged his wife knowing that smuggling would be the only way that she would and we entered the country and provide a second another hearing regarding the issue of cancellation removal and came to that hearing represented by counsel now the record is important with regard to this hearing because after hearing so he declined an opportunity to clarify the issues regardless of the fact that the immigration judge actually says to him district council are you prepared to do anything testimony with regard to the issue i think that's the answer judge fletcher's question your time has expired so thank you very much smuggling under state u s c section thirteen twenty four the defendant was playing in the central role in the actual entry obviously in its united states that factors absent here and therefore mr rann is not a smuggler under  attorney raised his intent to file an application for cancellation of remove all the immigration judge immediately sad so you want to proceed with an application for cancellation even though there's a good moral character problem with this clearly he had made up his mind