anywhere it is not clear from the record or on our our own page our nose certainly has been an unpaid one hundred and sixty nine it appears that he was using a motor vehicle in a fashion that caused some type of mental danger to another i just interrupt because the time it isn't a simple issue why isn't creating the risk of serious or substantial physical injury something that's against the norms of society but right on the act israel's side of the equation why wouldn't that alone decide this issue your honor because as the war in this part of long reasons mirror reckless conduct typically does not reach the level necessary for a violation definition that it must be accompanied by a serious infliction of bodily harm the war in fact a matter of so long recognize that as the medal of as the mens rea and decreases from intentional all the way down to  this level of misconduct on the boards on the president typically does not amount to a crime involving moral lawyers i have it your honor but my case would be that there still is some level of resulting harm that would have to be demonstrated under that provision once again under texas deadly conduct it only requires  in mexico who is also a citizen of the united states by virtue of his father's birth in america so certificate of naturalization that the us government the us government placed living at in proceedings and actually the government ballot final judgment instead of the bor the immigration judge found that he was not eligible for bond because he reported the man convicted of an aggravated felony peters that appeals to the board of immigration  accepted rules of morality and the two ringback between persons or society in general i respectfully disagree with my posing counsel about the issue of harm harm is simply not required in is not harm is significantly higher because we're talking about serious bodily injury yeah if i didn't need my palms be interpreted as ignoring harm altogether but my opponent seems to suggest that some sort of harm actual harm is necessary but what modified categorical approach so and also i think as your own pointed out before we're talking about the twit statute where all that's required is a little bit of harm you know a cut or bruce would suffice so it's different when you're talking about recklessly putting someone in danger of oddly harm or and actually inflicting that harm or recklessly and consciously disregarding the risk that you're met kill somebody or  cause serious bodily harm those are our separate analysis and of course she treated as such and we would suggest that gomez versus very simply is not applicable in this analysis given that those differences and statutes the six circuit was looking at using the same conviction under two different theories or are you doing at isn't do you accept that as the right holding for those facts no i don't think so your honor because under time we said it was an average felony and then that didn't work so we said ok leave that aside now what we're saying is we have two different crimes we're not talking about out of a felony anymore we're talking that these twenty two  same clay and that's important for the race you caught analysis that with the four elements of both cases didn't deal with the same claim or cause a cause of action at best you know yes a piece of that st play of it in the rest yeah it also is also in the record itself there's there's nothing to say that he was admitted into two thousand and nineteen and that petition filed a motion supplement the record but in the record itself and never there's nothing to indicate that that conduct it covers only dangerous or risky acts that cause no physical harm will bite is reason in petitioners case it's clear that there is simply no harm that's caused by