mayhem not be an aggravated felony ok got it under section two or three that the exact definition says every person who unlawfully and maliciously deprives a human being or a member of its body or said there must be a use of force now the question is can section two or three of the california penal code be applied without the use of force if someone were to use poison if someone were to for example that refers to ice here if strict standard here because when someone is ordered deported they are deployed it under this circumstance as an aggravated felony for the rest of their lives they have absolutely no chance of ever coming back so there has to be clear and convincing evidence forty three of what is an aggravated felony then it is not an aggravated felony because they can't just punch anything together in order to make it happen doesn't make any difference the california law itself describes mayhem as a violent felony involved in order to commemorate and the question is whether or not you can commit mayhem without having specific and under california law if the fines analysis two ways one is you have to have intent and the other i no specific intent and therefore based upon that this would also not fall under the aggravated felony statute because under federal rule eighteen u s c sixteen it is specifically said that there needs to be intent so based upon that your hon understanding is under the modified approach there needs to be a judicially recognized document which needs to be essentially a neutral document not a document that is put forward by one side but what's your best case for the proposition and the affirmation i that nature that are one sided that it don't have an opportunity to be submitted by both sides and is not basically given by the court itself are not you personally recognized documents for purposes of the modify categorical were both that the reason being specific facts of the case that it has to be given by the court not by one's life so i find the defendant guilty of the crime charged in count one of the indictment we have no idea what that means because the indictment is irrelevant i'm nothing if the relevant information to be the charge i think it can be considered your honor but if you were to look your honor at the one document that was provided in this case even if you look at the document it doesn't go into the specific facts of this case it sa well the first jury trial was that was hung and then you know he got convicted under another jury trial well so what did he do that got him convicted according to the official records but the official records  that just because he pled guilty doesn't prevent him under the sincere case from applying for to twelve the and that we would consider that to be an violation of equal protection because he would rely as much as someone who didn't plead guilty on whether or not there were immigration consequences or immigration he went to a jury to our theory that's correct and if he pled if he pled guilty there's no question he'd be eligible for even though i think i'm not guilty just so i can have an immigration benefit he could equally say and as an officer of the court you're telling us that's what happened in this case i'm not telling you that's what happened ok we would respectfully request that  useless without disfiguring it and without taking it off your honor it's in the statutory language itself you know counsel you have as hard an issue to argue as i've seen in some time you've done a very good job with