clearly mr moreno was not ever charged as another that felon nor can be charged assert however the agency determine that mr osorio molino is prohibited from seeking if we were to apply the analysis that the supreme court tells us and the camps to apply was the modified again a girl corporal properly applied here no i do not believe it was e statute covers matters that are not in fact partner think the categorical crime including transportation for example that is quite as clear on the record that he wasn't planning to store now the v a i never really read but even with regard to storage or anything he did that you're just getting ass in the play agreement but as to what he was convicted of what do we know we the record apply the typical rules of the modified approach simply because we are dealing with an application for relief and again there was no factual finding printing but if the body is not permitted to make factual finding and that's another fully in the record but what appears to have happened is mr marino exhausted his available relief in the form of applying probably for the a b c settlement the temporary protective status and out of those indication that he filed for adjustment of status even that was a long time quite clear he has a deal jay record that shows that based on his fingerprint and also based on the f b i thin he had never had another conviction since that time and i think that ties into an issue of the lay specific in the i j a decision well yeah but i can't meet a particularly serious crime is about the crime it's not about his waiters  problem i see at this point it's not an exhaustion problem and i mean i start from the premise and it is somewhat disturbing to have someone who is allowed to say this country for twenty five years and all of a sudden we're trying to remove him on a twenty five year old conviction which seems to have major problems under current law whatever may have been true earlier so it seems to me that's where you should direct your attention i e what about the if you think about meanings case well i haven't given the twenty five years which in some respects attributable to the government i mean if they let somebody i mean i know there's no actions against the government but essentially for criminal people with criminal problems so i assume that's when they went exercise in that in that box but given everything that we've discussed today it doesn't make sense to me to squeeze i could we could mean yes i could ask them again the first time it's simply replied to me saying it constitutes a priority removal and i understand that but that's a different question from the question for answer now and when you say ask again you you would be asking a different question not you would not be asking would you exercise prosecutorial discretion you would be asking the court has requested us to mediate are you willing to mediate we i assume that question was rejected because he wasn't a priority right because he had a criminal conviction but the question the problem here is there is there are questions about his criminal convictions which we're now discussing other factors in this case for what its worth i think you've got a serious decant problem with this conviction but the transportation statute yes i think so you know in my view it was goes back i think the noting not particular to the modified categorical products but the board also adds that even if this is not an aggravated felony case it would nonetheless find his crime to be particularly serious that they want to find this definition of