sustaining the removal charge against mr shooty and the nd issue is whether the yeah i erred in denying his motion tree mand to update the stale record on its applications for withholding or removal under the statute and protection under the convention against torture the b s a erred in sustaining the removal charge for three reasons st the charge itself that statute is not categorical matched to the to the crime of violence definition in sixteen when this matter with the last before the court court determined that the that the residual cause of eighteen u s c sixteen section b is unconstitutionally void for vagueness the court then they created the remov order and returned the matter to be presumably so they could formally terminate the removal proceeding the reason for that was that was the only removal charge and that was the only theory of removal that had been banned by the department of homeland security and they had been considered by the cia even though both sixteen a and sixteen b were raised by mr shoot shooty appealed the immigration judges riginal decision order and him removed he argued that his an armed robbery conviction is neither an aggravated felony under sixteen a nor was it an aggravated felony under sixteen the one relying on the supreme court's decision in johnson which casts significant doubt on whether sixteen be the residual cause there was also unconstitutional and w or the proceeding still open at that time my memory and i might be incorrect was that the charge itself was just section sixty is that right and then the response of course  not ask for every man to consider the buy ability of a sixteen and remove theory and that that waiver or that failure to raise or pursue those are humans significantly prejudiced mr shooty he was paroled from state custody in january of two thousand and seventeen yet he remained in d t s custody for more than three years  requires the user attempted use or threatened use of physical force against a person or property of another and that means physical force that violent force which is force capable of causing physical pain or injury to another person and requires a substantial degree of force the agency is as well has deemed it to require violent act of force capable of causing pain or injury to another person in the robbery context the supreme court in still going of found of the level of force is something that requires that that is sufficient to overcome a victim's resistance stoping dealt with the florida robbery statu where there was a specific element that needed to be found namely that the jury or the judge would have to find that the offender used force was sufficient to overcome the resistance the michigan statute has no such requirement the michigan statute can be violated truth simply through force not violence through force that is intended to embarrass not to make contact with or how do you deal with dollar ragland's fuller ragland although that decision found as a statute was a crime of violence under very similar provision it only looked at one part of the armed robbery statute it looked it whether the putting in fear means of violating that statute meets the elements cause of violence  crime of violence or violent felony it did not look at whether the force pran the force provision but we in that case a very thoughtful judge held that putting in fear is the least culpable broader range of context of conduct the fuller raglan decision did not address that part and i believe if it had it would have concluded based on michigan law michigan law interpretating and applying seven hundred and fifty point five three that that mere force does not meet the crime of violence definition even even in the robbery context force intended to embarrass does through a distinction between a defendant an offender who lifts up a victim's fingers to take a while it out of their hands and finding that that would satisfy the crime of violence definition and  to someone who grabs money from a victim's open hand meaning there is no movement there's no overcoming the resistance and the latter would not have been a crime of violence or taking a necklace from a victim's neck where there is contact but there's no force there's no overcoming of that resistance of the victim just the on lashing of the necklace and then violating the michigan statute through force intending to embarrass is similar to that it can be violated for example by removing a cellphone from a victim's back pocket and then threatening to send the forward embarrassing pictures that the victim has on that phone if the victim tried to get the phone back and that would be force intending to to embarrass the victim more violent more dangerous more serious conduct is punished in michigan under a different statute the armed robbery statute which requires dangerous weapons and includes enhancements or mandatory minimums involving aggravated assault and serious injury less serious conduct is punished under the an armed robbery statute there's a realistic probability that the machine statute will reach conduct that is outside the the definition of crime of violence and this is shown in two different ways one of the expressed language of michigan law  indicates that both the criminal jury instructions which explicitly allow a jury of to assist to enter a conviction based on force intending to bear at it and then as well as case was where  michigan courts have determined in similar context the plan is similar language force or violence or assault that can be violated through just offensive touching it didn't cause pain or injury through no touching at all or through something as the minimus is spitting and because an armed robbery statute rests the same language those cases are relevant to to this determination and i feel that my time is up almost up and i'll reserve the remaining time for to you might want to begin with the life or in what enraged you to counter argument regarding quick section was charged and whether an additional charge under a could be brought if identify any new facts or evidence that actually might change the outcome there's nothing in the record because it was simply a request to remain without any suggestion of alteration or facts that need to be considered in the request there may have been a suggestion of in fact your honor but i don't believe there good could you could you address just so i've got the theory right the the argument about whether the crime is particularly serious that is my right that the argument is that even if it's a crime of violence it has to be particularly serious in order to foreclose  circumstances but but i'm also correct that the particularly serious determination can be fact related as opposed to the crime of violence which is supposed to be categor offer any theory in support of their position that mr shooty was removable for an aggravated felony the attorney general has held that there is a single aggravated felony resulting in an extended detention unnecessary detention of more than three years following his release from state custody d h s s unlike responded are always represented by premier attorneys who have access to significant resources and if they can raise theories at any state in the matter after never raising them previously despite being out notice of the need to do that  then that creates a significant asymmetry between respondents many of whom are pro se and the department of homeland security to find if there's a realistic probability that statute reaches not removal conduct one of the ways of meeting that requirement is to rely on the expressed language of the statute and  community it presumed that he did it based on the facts of it found relating to the offense but he didn't actually look at whether at the moment i was making that determination he constituted a danger to the community and seeing that my time is up  docket the remainder are on briefcases so you could close out the us and