invalid because he was removed based on charges that are not aggravated felony the government argues that there is harmless error because there was an is irreconcilable with subsequent supreme court decision in i don't know how to pronounce it but malawi so and as it's not i mean we're pretty tough  what's irreconcilable in terms of our own bank purse precedents and what what is nice you know i'm back to be reconciled and i'm not sure that this just fall within the second category i came in twenty sixteen relying on malawi that it makes scant sense no sense at all for someone who convicted of fast in california of stealing ten thousand dollars to not be removable but someone else who received the stolen ten thousand dollars argument is foreclosed by this court's decision in corona sanchez and based on the just straightforward statutory interpretation eleven of eleven a one hundred forty three well the reason i bring it up is because there's an in depth analysis of what that does in california and receiving stolen property for it to be a theft offense has to include the generic offense requires that you receive theft but it it isn't in fact theft to receive stolen property to brant diseases in some way is not included it's only it's only adding on really and what is it adding on  the question i mean is there such a thing is consensual receipt of stolen property there is so in the you conceptually stolen property that's a question right when you have receipt of consensually stolen property consensually stolen property meaning extortion or something like that exactly and soaked in california law it is very clear california is unique in that in the way that you look at stuff but the argument that it's only a subset of theft but so my first argument is that the government had waived their this argument because it wasn't right but well we have a conditional plea and the government initially where it says about aiding and abetting i believe and or accessory after the fact and that was the only issue in that case they did not look at whether or not the statute was overbroad and for that very important reason for giving false is not binding on this court as far as  the united states supreme court recognize that insincere itself in fact your client the you can't remember from your brief do you agree that your client needs to meet that's somewhat more demanding standard in light of his criminal history i don't but i  not doesn't seem like it's out of the ordinary it's just kind of the standard hardship that would be posed great you don't even have as a number doesn't have any kids of his own here his parents are both deceased it's mainly his wealth not in ny which so we have to look back in two thousand to two thousand to three he would came here in one thousand seventy two when he was twelve years old he became a legal permanent resident his entire family and his mother's entire family came to united states but even as of two thousand t what do we have like the brothers or a few brothers two sisters maternal aunts and uncles over thirty cousins and in one thousand nine hundred five he had rehabilitated himself so he had those prior convictions all of his recent convictions are thirteen twenty six of this but he employed in selling a part of it and that's all great but that's just kind of ordinary it's not extraordinary in any sense right term because the hardship that would be posed to the folks left behind it was certainly a hardship for his brothers and his brothers families because of the support stolen property conviction counts or not isn't accurate my understanding was that florida was going to decide that issue is that your understanding what can you tell us about that is my understanding as well in the gentleman my colleague who wrote this a brief this brief he argued about a year ago and there it's what has been pending there was supplemental briefing and it's possible the judge reinhardt my memory's not perfect he may have been on that panel and then when he passed on was here was i think he was yes so maybe that's why it's appeal on the government's aware of cases like sheltering the other ones this is a collateral tack and maybe it hasn't been decided but i will acknowledge that is what is there something about that's the only question i really have for you today was because it seemed to me th are arguments if you have something more you don't do maybe just briefly your honor i do i think the one thing is even if on collateral review a case is found no longer to be an aggravated felony in light of intervening authority i know that there was a footnote even in the year rios decision that it doesn't change the finality for immigration purposes until the defendant moves to reopen but other than that i don't think i would submit on what we have but then i guess the only other thing i want to sa briefly about prejudice if this court does end up sustaining or at least finding that the two thousand and two removal was valid for the four ninety six yes there's no question the two twelve see wasn't advised but we do feel strongly that it would have been subjected to that heightened standard this court has numerous cases the b i a has numerous cases the heightened standard which requires a showing of unusual or outstanding equities is triggered by either a serious drug offen single serious crime or a succession of criminal acts here you have the assault with a deadly weapon or great bodily injury plus you have sexual battery obviously individually very serious plus you have the fact that he had six felonies which is definitely a pattern so when one looks under that lens i think the cases that we've cited is very rare that aliens were ever able to overcome that standard and as far as the statistic that my opponent pointed out yes it's issues of the sane so there's not a whole lot of point you are trying ourselves right now that i know how it works is first priority because i didn't know if they go for ok so if they go first and they're holding that if force comes out the way i think it should then there then there is no prejudice and we don't there's no prejudice analysis and we don't get to be in this court's case