back and take a second look at the removal since that is technically an element of the offense that can be a complicated procedure a lot of nuances come into play here the question is fairly simple question this according to  is does his nine hundred ninety nine this demeanor conviction for annoying a minor categorically qualify as an aggravated felony and there are two prongs that attack the most important on his does that qualify categorically in other words does the state statute a conviction comport with the federal definition of aggravated felony in other words can you commit is there any way to commit the california statute that doesn't constitute that doesn't comply with the federal there is a california individual who engages in low level stocking keeps following this girl around in his car he's doing it to satisfy some kind of sexual impulse on his part so he can be convicted under the statute statute broad no relevant under the categorical approach what you know ironically enough is not relevant because you know the supreme court said in taylor is that we don't want to have a little mini trials in federal for seedings about what the guy actually did what we do was we compare  that the california statute certainly covers that sort of conduct now we have a uniform federal definition here and the whole category one from the uniform federal definition i submit this court has an adopted one yet in this whole categorical approach is going to be  nine and they say well we need to have it the board of immigration appeals we need that uniformity in immigration law we need to have a uniform definition and in rodriguez rodriguez they said well here is a good that's an interesting question exotic thing the first thing i would say about that is that the government didn't really raise that issue below in the district court never considered it the second thing that i would say to that is usually in herrera blanco and other ninth circuit opinion here what the court do felt that they had to be felonies healthy years later they change their mind and say ok we're going to now say that they can be misdemeanors but had he appealed it's likely he would have won because at the time he would have a field the board of immigration appeals believe that sexual abuse of a minor convictions had to be felonies and they convene this to me in another aspect this case and i'm going to sit down with the government speak right now record quickly the focus became whether or not to defend it was statutorily her hid from being able to appeal or qualify for relief from deportation and that was that was argued from then on so although it wasn't merely required to inform the alien that he has a right to appeal the decision in his case as you point out in the record the forms were given to him to do that and i think we have to look at his decision not to appeal in light of the fact that he was able to prepare an application for then defendant then made a choice he was saying on the record i like to get out for my children the judge didn't have that authority so then he says well in essence for the better of my children is better that i not appeal and be deported and then at that point obviously he couldn't support them and to be with them in mexico that the united if i may before we do that since we're bringing out things that counsels indicate we're not supposed to talk about and pages forty two and forty three and forty four of the excerpts of record are the original charges against the defen someone sent someone roses that may be appropriate for an adult we have to keep in mind the statute only applies if someone is doing what they're doing they're annoying them repeatedly to a child and the california cases talk about annoying the last ordinarily relate to you thank you seventeen my reply brings me to my last point is that the government is arguing that we didn't preserve the issue of whether this invasion qualifies categorically and i would know that if you look at the excerpts of record pages eighty four through ninety three the district court and the government