of marijuana that was found in the backpack the immigration judge relied on the police reports make the finding that it was more than what the statute says and denied the motion to terminate applied and the circumstance sipek approach should have been apply in with a bit of our position that based on the records of conviction the judge should have never got behind the record collection  there's no question about the amount the immigration judge found in me was part of the objected to the finding that you can avoid x factor was marijuana the immigration judge agreed with the government that issue i would reserve two minutes for rebuttal right one quarter ounce not less than one quarter ounce be greater than a quarter ounce which means that this amount however much it can do can go as high as you can possibly imagine and i can't believe that he would have a bucket of it but if he had  gallons of the material he would have died that would fall under the offense also two another thing i do want to sort of say is we're not necessarily wedded to having this case decided under chevron we think that the statute less than that under the board's prior precedence you don't even you don't even go in that direction i mean if it is a gram or less than it's clean if it's an ounce or less it's clearly under thirty grams and under the board's president we'd be done but this does open the door to the circumstances if approach that is correct so going back to the circumstances approach here initially won both sort of give us a set of benchmarks as to what tipped us off as to when a particular statute or a particular language limiting language or exceptional language in the statutes allows the what the fraud or deceit provision right which was the criminal provision and then you have this limitation over here to the side of ten thousand dollars that would be the sort of thing that you would look into or similarly if you look at the very next and that would seem to be the kind of case that would you know that would invite investigation into the particular facts and in finally the rd sort of thing you want to look at is whether or not if you read if you applied the categor l approach this right if you applied this exception categorically whether it would i just said to flee explode would would would undermine the underlying but the the major provision or would underline undermine the provision you know the  thirty grams or less of marijuana right so this is brave and the nd provision doesn't refer to a federal statute doesn't refer to a generic event doesn't refer to anything it's something that's layered on by the i and a and that would be that's an indicator that big we are in circumstances at the territory then we go to the nd you know this nd sort of look and see if it invites those kinds of that kind of analysis and we look at it i mean the st thing out is it's an exception to this other provision you have this criminal provision and then you have this exception language and generally when you look at the eye and when you have these kinds of provisions that work like this you are looking at you know this is a conviction for blank when the you have for spouses and children of united states citizens while permanent residence and this waiver provision specifically allow those children to two to not you know to a act it becomes part of it's sort of scrunched into the reallocation of the reed designation of the various deportation grounds and ultimately into where it is today but the nd thing you want to look at in sort of looking at whether or not this is a language invites this kind of construction is you want to look at you can look at you know it starts out with a term a single offense and that's not something that's going to be apparent on the face of the statute that's going to be something that you're going to have to find out extraneous lee likewise in most of the cases you're going to whether or not this is a  possession for one's own use that again is going to generally require someone to look into the event it's not going to be something that's apparent on the face of much of many of these can possession statutes but importantly it's this language involving and in some cases you know say for you know it's the way in which involving relates to the dependent clause that's the big deal here some cases you have involving for example marijuana or involving a particular  event that's very discrete and there are instances in which that kind of use of involving would be amenable to the categorical approach but here you have involving and you have this full dependent clause of possession for one's own use of thirty grams or less of marijuana and it's hard to see what that would be other that why involving carries any weight whatsoever if it's not circumstance to city because there aren't i can't think of any sort of paraphernalia or other kinds of convictions that have within their contours within their boundaries possession for one  paraphernalia for one's own use for thirty grams of less of marijuana that that just seems bizarre so that is that use the word involving in that circumstance is somewhat determinative finally the  the other thing i want to point out it has to do with if you were to apply it categorically it would blow up effectively it would it would over sort of the goal of this provision it would allow it would allow you know it would mean that if you have passed you know having an upper limit on the marijuana a marijuana mound of being thirty nine grams or less all of those statutes that sort of trigger upwards from that would go out would suddenly be wrapped into this provision when that's not what this provision is aimed at it's aimed at this very simple simple use of marijuana i see my time is up if the court doesn't has any further questions for me i'm happy to answer them versus barr is submitted and will next hear argument in resort properties of america versus central florida and vestments