mailing of a check and you now have four thousand three hundred and fifty six dollars or agreed to pay restitution for a significantly larger amount of loss to the victim tied to the count of conviction was well below the ten thousand dollars threshold required to deem the petitioner is conviction an aggravated felony aboard in the case committed legal air i finally got attention when convicted of an aggravated when his record of conviction clearly establishes that his conviction resulted in a loss of less  assume for a moment that there was no plea agreement as to as the amount of loss there's certainly evidence in this record that the crime of conviction looking at this record i could conclude that a much larger number than the number in the plea agreement was a loss tied to the kind of conviction so it seems to me your argument must be that the plea agreement limits board's exceedingly limited definition of a single scheme of misconduct particular as is known as when it hurt the board has held that a single scheme of criminal misconduct and one alien has performed an act which in of itself constitutes a crime the board did not find a single even if the additional offense may closely follow the other similar in character and even be part of an overall plan of misconduct  think that if we're to accept that petitioner was convicted of a larger scheme it would necessarily be estopped britt complete crime i'm not sure about because just the nature of what he did and what he pled guilty to there was no sort of separate independent scheme to obtain four thousand dollars that was mailed to him that the scheme was to to obtain a fraudulent loan and as part of that he died the four thousand dollar check so it just seems to me that there could be cases see involving check cashing where the conduct is more serial in nature as may present a different issue but how can you disagree gate the four thousand dollar mailing convicted for the single count of mail fraud which was less than five thousand dollars i think it's important especially in immigration consequences context that a defendant be able to rely on the explicit language with end of plea agreement because in this case the petitioner has given his constitutional rights when he agreed to the plea agreement and he did all of that in the hopes that he would be able to remain in the united states on it is clear that when you are calculating the last of the make them under an aggravated felony analysis you can only look at what is tied to the specific count of conviction and  superseding information the plea agreement and the judgment demonstrate his conviction or male pride involved in loss to a victim or victim in excess of ten thousand dollars contrary to mr mock his argument the agency was not and that says even if we were in china was of course a categorical case but he said even if we were allowed to go past the shepherd documents we couldn't because the but even if we could go past even if we hadn't even if we were allowed to look broader more broadly into record we wouldn't because the plea agreement stipulated the amount of loss and it doesn't really deal with that issue expressively so my question is is that part of whether it's stick there were still still still valid your i don't think so i think that need to want clarified the landscape of how you look clear that its mission was pleading guilty to a fraud of less than ten thousand dollars but then you have some other documents like the superseding information and maybe some sentencing related materials that indicate the additional language that mr mock is the agreement which indicates that the actual loss was in excess of ten thousand dollars the trans in his plea agreement the transaction that utilize the ma thousand three hundred dollars figure but there's also language in that the agreement which was not contained in the plea agreement that that was in chang that talks about how there was a scheme that he devised an the circumstances surrounding the the commission of the crime must be considered according to the forest and that's talking about the sources of proof but it doesn't expand what you're friends with conviction scheme and there where there was a single transaction that was under the ten thousand dollars threshold where the plea agreements and the superseding information indicate that there was a larger scheme then then the court or think that is the scheme that involves the mortgage the project and mortgage loan transactions and that the transaction involving the mail for it with for the amount four thousand three hundred and fifty six dollars w obtaining of that four thousand three hundred dollars check cause greater loss to the ba i believe is the heart of the law it's part of a loss or was that's my question you know what i can i suppose i can steal a dollar from you and because it's your only dollar you starve and therefore even though i'm being charged stealing your dollar the loss that i've caused is greater than the dollar so i'm trying to figure out here whether or not obtaining this check caused a greater loss than simply the amount of the check and i'm not familiar enough with the with the allegations about the scheme to answer that question can you not store it caused a greater loss or if it was just a transaction that was part of the overall scheme that caused the eventual actual loss let me tell you let me tell me tell you if you've been large what concerns me about the government's position and see if you can respond to it and you're not you're obviously it's not the same lawyers in both cases but the government made a deal with mr maka and he's not arguing it stoppable so i don't know what the the facts of the deal where but they stipulated that he committed a lesser crime than they might have convicted him of and stuck a loss amount to it and now the government's trying to say well we yeah we did that in order to get you to plead guilty but now we want to deport you now it's not the same lawyers and i'm not blaming everybody in it but it does big the check was cut by the delany national in sometime between july to november two thousand and one so i just want to point out that the that the judgment itself has the offense and date of two hundred and fifty two thousand necessarily an awful argument right now but language that talks about the actual loss is staying by the lenders being well over the ten thousand dollars amount so if you're on your view is that in fact th mention chang chang doesn't have chain has a six hundred and five dollars loss amount and it didn't have this other additional language like we have in this case that talks about the loss to the lenders being at a minimum nine plan rather than a wider course of conduct regardless the government must still review the criminal record and document to determine the actual crime for which tradition i was convicted for a conviction to be legally now your seem to be applying a categorical approach which we don't do in this circumstance so what would what the government says is what this plea agreement sort of said hey for purposes of sentencing will stipulate the only cause the four thousand dollars loss but we all recognize the loss was much greater so how can you rely on that plea agreement to say that the loss wasn't greater yes so w the conduct which he was charged with was only taking a four thousand dollars but you can't say we're limited because we're we're limited because these plea agreements stipulated what the number is ken there's no record here that says the government promised me when we did this it wouldn't be used against me in a in a court of law which what you're arguing is that we should strictly follow the plea agreement my problem with that argument is that the plea agreement says look we're making you a deal for purposes of sentencing we're stipulating to four thousand dollars loss for purposes of sentencing not for restitution we're going to see much more and you recognize the loss was much greater so given the specific language of that cleargreen and my question is how can we be can you say it was conclusively established that the loss was four thousand dollars beyond the ones that language and the agreement if it does not mix and thank you thank you let me thank both sides for their briefing in arguments in this case which will be submitted