car could have been a person so we can just assume for the purpose of looking at this statute that california requires at least knowledge that an accident has occurred that's any reasonable basis to believe that the that the witness and in this case we're talking about are witnessed who's testifying whether they can be impeached whether that conduct has any reasonable possible if it's reasonable to believe that such conduct should throw into question their credibility as a witness whether it indicates some the required identifying information is seeking to evade civil or criminal prosecution at the very least then a person convicted of violating section two thousand twenty thousand and one has exhibited an intent and purpose concealing his identity and also his involvement in an injury accident doesn't that sound like a champ to me right although the constructive knowledge is really i  should have again it's it's more than negligence but it's the driver hit something or if there's some reason that the driver should have checked the driver for whatever reason did not check that's enough under the statute i understand the reasoning of which he stood but i would submit that it's a very different purpose that the the court is looking at under federal law i have not found any  case which has and under which construct of knowledge suffices to reach the higher standard of necessarily involving evil motives evil intent or  samples of an instance in which a good driver is involved in an accident this aware that there was an accident and leaves would not have the intent to avoid civil or criminal that judgment of course he did he went on it happened that the the man there was a man that was hit it could have been a piece of property it could been a property in that case it would have been and a misdemeanor statute for asylum under section one hundred six c the real i d act in cases involving criminal aliens this court does have jurisdiction to look at constitutional questions and questions of law in this case a one year bar that's that is a  record at page seventy four if we were to look at the california statute do we apply the modified categorical approach is that the government's position is the government's position around or that because they there is no jurisdiction with respect to that issue because this was not a question with them you know so soon that we get to the point where we look at the that's really not an issue here anymore it's on page seventy four of the record i would also like to address this withholding and cat and i actually don't think your answer judge his question it would be helpful to the court if you did because we're trying to analyze these questions of law and i know you want to argue something different but we're interested and if we reach that question and this is your opportunity to talk to us about that if we reach the question of moral turpitude it is your position or the government's position says i agree with regard to the charges well but the question say he didn't say he just you know he answer the question the way you answer jeff hawkins question he didn't answer if you just said i agree that i have the charges he didn't agree and the green would have been ye i'm concerned because i just look like it's conceded at all and he doesn't concede it in any of his papers well we would respectfully disagree with respect to that your honor but we would also argue that this was raised before the board fails on that point  argument you say that there was a terminations the petition was untimely and we can't know that that's correct that there was a concession with regard s there's a concession on the crime even if there's not a concession on the crime they didn't leave it before the board right right yet you're prepared to argue that substantial evidence denial and withholding but you were not you didn't come prepared today to talk about which approach we should take if we actually look at the california statute well it is our position i guess you know we understand your position and my question can be answered with a yes or no did you or did you not come prepared today to discuss which approach we should take because of course if we look at the california hit and run structure well that's part art with the yes for the no but i don't think i can give a yes or no answer to that be and tell me whether you came prepared to discuss that today that's all i'm asking you know with respect to that that involves multiple turf so you're not prepared to discuss which approach we should take a but you do point us to information that's outside the pleading and charging documents is that right that's that's correct ok but he's in the record and the only thing that the government put on in terms of this charge was the charging documents i mean this this stance i'm sorry it was the tracking documents that's the only thing in the record conviction by charging documents or the indictment as the case may be and anything else they think is judicially noticeable because that's the charge and i guess all we have here is the charging document which would not be adequate under  but there's nothing else really available i know you requested that and our first position of course is that's outside the record but we did call our client and that was nothing else was available that's all they had  obviously a first modified categorical approach or categorical project but this is not uncommon these are not uncommon questions while you're on it but however in this case i understand that some other cases but in this case we don't even get to that because they have not exhausted they have not raised this before the board under two forty two do you want it is not before this court that is our position i understand your position and even go beyond that position while they conceded a page seventy four that we read we respectfully disagree with accord