of cases saying that same thing and the sincere decision was limited to legal issues that is questions of law or constitution and so and in fact when the when must be is going to be noted that there would be where in the in the legislative history going to win legislative history there's an awful lot of stuff in the legislature are i'm saying your honor is that the importance of having an appeal to the be a was noted when congress the federal courts to be some legislator said correct your honor correct your honor but the congress did not establish any right entitlement or otherwise to i'm not sure yours to my question maybe i didn't phrase it very well there still is a big i it rights there are still people who are appointed to sit as members of that board but as i read your regulations there are fewer cases where three members will sit in review now there are many more cases where only one b i remember will hear the appeal so how have you been your right to appeal  with that leaves to the federal courts in the cases where there are is the appeal still with the agency decision that says we affirm the result we don't necessarily adopt the reasoning you're using a funny word necessarily i don't think that decision cannot be appealed to a court the legal issue which the boy agency ultimately ruled on in its opinion it said it was alt because harmless error why because even though there was not  am it's just market level of explanation that you would prefer but when you say you don't have review in fact you do you file a brief you make your pitch and b i am through one member looks at it in status in effect this is where we control by existing precedent it's a insubstantial issue of fact or more that's raised or if there was any error it's harmless error so you not say anything we do review the immigration judge's decision you do when only when only when the board adopts the reasoning and that's what you said in a lower there is absolutely no change in that in terms of the type of procedures and the level of review that has been going into the alien before they reach before the board issues the alien gets notice of the charges against him he has an opportunity to appear before the board the board can or cannot may or may not grant that that that opportunity for argument but it is there the only difference is that the report at the end of this whole procedure instead of issuing a full blown to happen before the board even issued its decision the other side says that it doesn't have any problem with the difference between one and three judges before the regulations were working out of the b i have of have handled these cases exactly as are handled now in this regulation decided that the discretionary decision would not have been the reason it would have affirmed primarily it doesn't mean that it was a reason that was discounted or that it would have reversed on the discretion that's pure speculation at this point they say th always order the matter we manage if we determine that whatever reasons the i j a gave are not sufficient for our judicial review well that's i guess assuming it can get that for you and in  presented to us in support of the petition and we say we cannot conduct our judicial review here because we just can't tell what happened at the agency level don't we still have the authority to  complaint alleged the crime of sexual assault crime of sexual assault cannot be found under the nevada statute is specifically exempt and so what happened in that case can't be convicted in sexual assault for that act i'm sorry you can't be convicted under the statute for sexual assault and that's a very very important factor on and that would be not true if in fact it was all the crime with which he was charged and convicted does involve sexual abuse of a minus and again in this case there's no terms that the statute requires that the child be under fourteen arguments these are new arguments so therefore it's clearly under the procedures to be oh they should have been applied in this case because of the new the new arguments also the fact that my client hundred  so because there was no other there was no room on the calendar and the i j a schedule for a full blown merits hearing and he made and again there's no real there's no reasons apparent in the record as to why the hearing was for that continued for another year but again there's nothing in the record review the decision carefully simply over didn't look at the issue check and asked to no objections my plane appeared before the immigration judge four days before i my client rely on the judge's granting of the motion to reopen his statements on the record that we're ready to go he had no reason to believe that he was not eligible for suspension and the fact that this case was sent over a year and a half later no reason whatsoever and he never had an opportunity to present marriage that he was ready to go on september twenty sixth but the judge certainly now as far as the exam issue real quickly  they agreed and i can provide it to the court they agreed that they should have repapered the first time around they agreed to your case yes they agreed that they overlooked it in they should have repapered that in itself for the first time yes we have a copy of that and i don't you know this just happened last week and what effect does that have on on our resolution you know right i believe that it doesn't because one they didn't address the suspension aspect which is what i'm asking  for they didn't address those arguments to even if they agreed that they they repapered as counsel stated we papering is a potential relief with a higher standard so am i correct in assuming your case is a to be excused the commissioner i we believe that my primary issues were a suspension and that we were eligible for suspension and that issue was not addressed by the board at all ignored well if i five or so i think it's important to fill us in on some major development this case please do so otherwise you will will hear the next case where  in entering her guilty plea she did not make that admission as the record of conditional deals what was the intent that was involved i don't know what the intent was we don't know what your world wasn't but you but you don't know what it was traditional admission in the brief ok the the my if i kind of oracle approach allows the court to look at the record of conviction for facts that relate to admissions made in the context of entering into the guilty pl what counsel may say about the circumstances of this where it is a fenced in a brief before the big ira don't inform the court of what she said when she took her guilty plea for example in the limited to the the initial need in connection with a guilty plea is is necessary because we need to know what she said when she entered the guilty plea the factual circumstances which are possibly what's described in the b a a brief don't tell us what she had a separate sentencing statute for which there were felony consequences if you had a prior petty theft conviction here we have a very straightforward common law crime of receiving stolen property and she has made an admission that she took the car without permission and i'm wondering and she acknowledges that in her brief and i'm wondering why that isn't sufficient under taylor and yes well i think that there's two ways of looking at what she said in that brief and one way i'm sorry she agreed that it was an aggravated felony right but i don't think that that would preclude this court from revealing whether that is a legal matter have to struggle with is do we have we have jurisdiction to determine jurisdiction and the question is is there sufficient evidence before us to determine whether she's an aggravated found based on the record presented to us and if we conclude that there is th it and so those protections for partly observed by the by the immigration judge and with those protections and even knowing that the full understanding of what was going on in the proceedings as evidenced by her comparatively sophisticated understanding are lying on the statement of counsel in the brief for that purpose not completely i think the conviction record that was in the record the probation document that was in the record which says her that her conviction me i think the government is finally seeing the light here that there is no intention required in the statute and that the record of conviction doesn't contain an admission that it's one that acted with the intent the statements in the b i a brief or by counsel describing factual circumstances of the offense they were not an admission made in the connection with made in connection with the preparation of a judicial document which is what this court  that's correct so she did know it was full the i think the question should be focusing on what is the premise of all documents for the court to look at under the modified what about overanxious document