initial point in this case is whether or not their conviction was for never valid felony or not the prior counsel at the administrative hearing only only request determination of proceedings because he believed that it was not an aggravated felony and therefore they were not actually removable we can make that argument as well because the statute there are two different statutes and the government in their briefs in the initial proceeding argued that mr and mrs keller shima had been or should be looked at as having been convicted under a different statute and that appears in the charging documents they were convicted under seventy two all six friends one and prince two for the husband and the wife respectively the government argued that they should be viewed as having been convicted under seventy two a one which is clearly erroneous that they only a plea agreement they pled to seventy two  six never did they plead to seventy two well known the difference between seventy two or one in seventy two hours it is that seventy two on one is tax evasion which involves quite a lot of actual  intent under seventy two or sixty it's and it's a much lesser offense and so far as its signing something and there may be some mistake in what you've signed i would submit to the court that it's more than possible that many of us have not reviewed every single item in our documents at all times they did have it in a year and accountant and when it became and then they didn't even speak english at the time that they made these mistakes but when they became aware of their mistakes when they became aware of their tax problems they immediately cooperated with this government in order to repay to the united states treasury any and all funds that they are owed and the reason hundred seven but the reason for the delay was not that that the cause she was didn't want to place they were working with the government to assess what the actual penalty would be what the actual tax problem was the exactly how much they were involved with this plea agreement at the very beginning of the proceedings with the with the government and therefore that cleargreen and even though the actual formal plea agreement is dated in august four months later then the statutory requirement for there and their initial involvement was always an ability and a willingness to totally cooperate with the government and in fact they've paid back all the money and in the documents in the  cancellation on the twenty seventh when actually this group in the record that they were seated on the statutory date of april twenty fifth it was sent fedex to them and we have a we decide on the basis of this see you are outside the ninety days but you're saying that your deadline with that you were allowed to file later because because of the special motion for two to see relief which had to be received by the ministry thirty five april twenty sixth which they did receive  korea right i understand your argument even if they are activated have been convicted of aggravated felonies it's obvious that they are totally eligible for to go seriously and if this case will remain true to an immigration judge i'm certain that an immigration judge would gran aggravated felony and as opposing counsel said we are dealing with a couple different statutes here but namely begin please fire referring to the t ax code statutes that are discussed those being the section seven to all one attempt to evade or defeat taxes and then seven to zero six that is the tax code sections under which the petitioners pled guilty in the proceedings and i would i would first like to point out something that i don't think we emphasized in our brief but you know in back it seems to me something that is simple and straightforward in that seven to zero six isn't titled fraud and false statements that's the title that congress gave that section of the tax code and then listed you know find some parts underneath that whereas the phrase the as tax code section seven to one is simply entitled statements so it's seems clear that congress was listening to some parts underneath that that in order to convict someone you've had to  that the statutory language when it was clear and that petitioners were convicted of an aggravated felony because you know that the core issue was as this court stated earlier as you know cutting to the chase here troubled by the absence of proof there as to this is to come as you know there there was proof of greater than ten thousand dollar loss what can you rely on in this record to income but how can we from that say that what they owe the government is over ten thousand dollars well let me answer that by going to the plea agreement it's that stimulate the total amount of corrected corporate taxable income which the government can prove the cow was sheena's chloral sales report is as follows and i'd like to also point out that from eighty eight eighty nine nine hundred ninety one is three hundred and sun thousand but how does that but how that does not specifically show the loss to the government was over tim i mean yeah you can say well when i found my taxes i would have to pay more than ten thousand dollars in taxes on that amount of income but how do we really know you know aren't you asking us to speculate on that no not at all you probably looking at program twelve with respect to two hundred forty five today it just wasn't his view that it goes right to the aggravated right to that to be an aggregate aggravated felony it has to be a loss of over ten thousand dollars right that that is part of the aggravated felony and they're kenyan it's not an aggravated felony right they are claiming it's not an aggravated felony and on on a different part of the statute they're saying that there was no fraud and deceit involved in their conviction they're not   the board was discussing cancellation of removal and that that is in my opinion not the release that they were seeking and the board did make them and state every friend to cancellation and we  stated that also in our brief to this court but it's lives in a state with no consequence here because i think i'd like to go back and look at petitioners motion back to the prior poor decision which correctly found that their conviction was an aggravated felony for the reasons we were discussing a couple of minutes ago was the sequence here   that page in the record in the supplemental record of the smaller part of the record it appears on page twelve and we see that the date stamped by the board of immigration appeals was april twenty attached to their reply brief i believe are not in the records there are copies of some federal express receipt or something that's addressed to the board of immigration appeals but of course this is a record review those documents are not in the record the record indicates only what it indicates that is a certificate of service a full twenty three office of district council in los angeles and the board indicate received it a full twenty seven but nonetheless to go back to the court's question they could not prove prima fascia eligibility for any relief thank you very much not eligible for cancellation that's the difference in one thousand nine hundred seventy congress passed it passed a large piece of immigration legislation commonly referred to as ira in which they ended to twe relief but a substitute so to speak cancellation and cancellation someone who's been convicted of an aggravated felony of residence who has a green yacht you cannot be eligible for cancellation they basis of which you argue that we can not only review the time in this issue but find your way on the merits well applying for cancellation they were not applying the cancellation they were applying for trustee release and the difference between cancellation into twelve seeing is that if you convicted of an even if you're convicted of an aggravated felony you are eligible for not under the statute itself prior to ira there was a very clear definition of two twelve states someone has had to have had residency in this country for seven years they have to have shown right and then to be i went on to say that they did and did not prove the hardship cancellation but even under the cancellation statute for a person who is not a resident who's been in this country for ten years and ha statutory relegates not just children spouse or parents who have either citizenship or lawful permanent residency the applicant has to prove exceptionally unusual hardship however for a person who actually has residency here thank you counsel the case just argued will be submitted for decision