there's a lot of this part of the record of it's considered by the i j a it absolutely manors your honor the issue here is that the government the minute only one document in support of the portability which was the abstract of judgment this circumstance it would not your honor particularly not in the context of an application for relief of mr requiring me that in most in the context of relief the regulation at twelve forty point eleven isn't in all cases it's an immigration case and the government does have the burden of proving to portability secondly both this court and the supreme court has held that there are particular documents that are part of the record of conviction that can be used to prove to portability and a petitioner or in the immigration context a respondent admission is not admissible in order to prove to portability if they're actually denying to portability i must confess i am really puzzled that your position smelling burger had not been issued and on the basis of case law at that time we believed that the abstract of judgment was sufficient and we say that that is still the government's position that the abstract of judgment is sufficient and  your honors may know the stronger first currently on rehearing it doesn't make a specific you know regarding the abstracts of judgment and any decision on snellen burger would likely affect this case suggesting under those circumstances that you have a crime of violence when you're welcome somebody into your house they commit an act district something from you using no force whatsoever the concept that becker  the concept that back of his trying to embrace was that even if it was the housekeeper in our pair that if things were if they were robbing the home that and the owner possibly came upon them that the issue of whether if the if the colloquy was introduced into evidence in the subsequent perceive four months later is it part of the totality of the record that on review since we consider the plea yeah i'm asking whether there's any case law that enables us to consider it since it was introduced to the later part of the proceeding after the after the abstract of judgment had been used so i want to try to find out is can you rehabilitate particular situation the regulation would not allow you to consider that document as far twelve forty point eleven he is not as counsel for the government mentioned an asylum statute and it's a regulation that has to do with the fact that there's available proceedings and an individual who's applying for relief in this case with willing for withholding of removal needs to be able to present all the evidence in support of that application their regulation does and you're right the regulation i and least the present version says however nothing in this section should we have at the service from using information supplied in an application for asylum or withholding as a basis for issuing of a charging document or to establish alien  of removal the government can use the fact that they've applied for asylum or withholding proof that they're an alien whereas previously there was a regulation that prohibited the government from using that sort of proof to portability program and we certainly recognize the importance of everybody have a chance to give oral arguments not a lot of those these days so congratulations to both of you thank you for your presentation both you and the government and the case of quantum versus