country illegally is entitled to vocational rehabilitation or retraining. This issue, and whether it isproperly before this Court, also present questions of law.ANALYSIS AND REVIEWClaimant was released as having achieved maximum medical improvement in August 2,004. Therecord contains no evidence that would support a fording that his status changed until January27, 2005, the date he underwent surgery. Therefore, the panel's decision vacating the TTD awardfor the period of January 5, 2005, until January 27, 2005, is supported by the record, and issustained.However, the panel's decision vacating the award of vocational rehabilitation benefits must bereversed. In their appellate briefs, the parties focus on whether the "vocational rehabilitation"awarded by the trial court is equivalent to "job placement," and whether an "illegal" immigrant isentitled to either benefit. Both parties appear to agree that the Workers' Compensation Act doesnot exclude illegal or undocumented workers from coverage. See Cherokee Industries, 2004 OKCIV APP 15, 84 P.3d 798. Both parties also couch their arguments under the assumption that thetrial panel found that Claimant is, in fact, illegally in this country.8The trial court made no such finding and the record does not support same. Even if we agreedthat the workers' compensation. court had authority to determine whether an individual is "legally"or "illegally" in this country - a proposition which we do not address at this time9 - the record doesnot support a finding that Claimant is in fact; illegal. Although Employer sought to ask Claimant if he was in the United States legally, and the court sustained an objection thereto, Employer doesnot now claim that the court improperly excluded such evidence, nor did it make an offer of proof of same at trial after the court's ruling. Simply put, there is a complete absence of admittedevidence to sustain a finding that Claimant was an illegal immigrant.Because there is no evidence supporting a finding that Claimant was an illegal immigrant, thisCourt cannot resolve the issue of whether such a person can qualify for vocational rehabilitationversus "job placement." When a question of law is presented and argued on appeal, but does nothave support in the trial court record, an appellate court may not consider and determine theissue. See e.g., State v. Torres, 2004 OK 12, 7, 87 P.3d 572, 588 (appellate court may "disregardsua sponte deficiencies in the legal theories pressed," but may not disregard deficiencies in therecord); Romney v. Davis, 1953 OK 33, 14, 253 P.2d 546, 548 (appellate court may not giveopinion since "such an issue . . . was not presented under the record and is not to be consideredor determined upon appeal"); Munger v. Elliott, 1940 OK 159, 100 P.2d 876 (syllabus no. 3)("aquestion of law presented and argued on appeal that is not shown to arise under the facts andrecord will not be considered and determined"). While Oklahoma law recognizes that stipulationsof facts and admissions "may serve as evidentiary substitutes" that dispense with the need for proof of conceded facts, "unsworn statements" of an advocate do not constitute evidence. Tomes,2004 OK 12 at 29, 87 P.3d at 585.Aside from Claimant's alleged illegal status, Employer does not present, and the record does notreveal, any other ground upon which to deny Claimant the vocational benefits recommended bythe PROS report and required by the workers' compensation court trial judge. Claimant meets thecriteria for such recommended benefits, as set forth in 85 O.S. 16 (2006) - i.e., since he is "anemployee who has suffered an accidental injury . . . covered by the Workers' Compensation Act."Thus, the panel's decision to vacate the award of those benefits is not supported by the law or theevidence.Should circumstances arise, not shown to exist in the record here, which result in Claimantbecoming ineligible for or unable to participate in a job placement program due to his status inthis country, then Employer may petition the workers' compensation court for relief. As it nowstands, however, the record provides no basis for the panel's decision to deny Claimantvocational benefits.