after the final order for movable anytime you have a petition filed prior to the final order of removal it obviously complies with this timing outlined counsel do we even have to reach this issue here or can't construe the filing as an amended petition for review that was timely from the review shoot yes i mean and if we did that would there be any need to  decide this issue that has divided circuits and scholars and others to decide whether there was a right the naming her premature petition for review correct your honor so absolutely we think the court can year they were filed within thirty days of the reissued order and the evidence mr torres is ongoing desire to seek review of the b i e s removal order the contents of petitions for of you are governed by rule fifteen and eight u s c twelve fifty two and the supreme court and this court have held in construing these kinds of rules of procedure they should be interpreted liberally particularly in the context of pro se submissions like those here and actually i think that the government can correct me if i'm wrong but i took their of the right so on the substantive question here this court should hold that my client is not deportable because his felony coercion conviction doesn't qualify as a crime of violence the crime of violence is one that necessarily involves violent force in every instance and violent force has been defined by the supreme court in the circuit as substantial force capable of entering personal property you're the out of the victim's hands twice and the nevada supreme court brushed aside the sufficiency challenge they didn't talk about that the agree a force there it held that merely preventing the person from using his cell phone was sufficient to uphold the conviction under this court's precedents the degree of force used in gran clearly doesn't qualify as violent force there is a number of precedents in this line in florist court arrow for example the court held that a resisting arrest conviction under state didn't categorically involve the use of violent force and it in support of that conclusion if went into a conviction in which the defendant was kicking the arresting officers the court characterize this as a minor scuffle and i said that's not sufficient to satisfy the violent force threshold similarly in walton the court asked whether a robbery conviction categorically involve the use of violent force and again it pointed to several convictions that it said didn't involve the use of wound force including the one including one w cases and we would argue that in fact compared to the force at issue in forest court era where that if it was actually kicking the arresting officers the degree of force and graham is substantially less than that and we think that under these presents this is an easy case grammars off the substan question in our favor and we think it's telling that although we discussed these precedence our opening brief that the government doesn't reply to them in its opposition if i think it really has no answer to any of these precedents and i'm wondering really doesn't go into any of these cases or any of this case already before johnson analysis even if the court disagrees with our reading of johnson it should still rule in mr torres as favor by adopting the reasoning that a panel of this court adopted in a gale mariano so in the battery statute force is just an element of the crime and it can be a felony or misdemeanor i believe but yes it's not an aggravating factor as it is for nevada felony coercion but again it's battery uses the term force or sufficient ram is absolutely sufficient this is an alternative argument your honor and our view is that using the battery statutes definition of force still preserves the structural integrity of the felony felony coercion covers a wide range of conduct some of which involves no physical force at all so even if you interpreted the physical force element a felony coercion to include mere de minimus force there would still be a wide range of misdemeanor conduct under that statute in the sort straightforward and clear way to proceed in this case liberal construction of per se pleadings considering these these pleadings themselves challenge the substance of the board's three issue decision they were filed within thirty days that's what's required late is it about the ripening argument that troubles the government i'm happy to discuss the ripening argument your honor that the government would suggest that this court sided with the fifth and sixth circuits and not the second and third  why because particularly in this case it's important to consider the finality a show and there was a final decision and this is not a can to the cases it wasn't delivered to him it was delivered under the regulations correct it was not delivered to him but it was served per the regulations and the means to be happening more and more that because the government is i mean just in my experience with the cases and see that because the government is moving individuals  detained from center to center to center decisions come down and they don't get to the detainee and it's kind of a problem that some is going to end up having to deal with yeah i actually tried to look into this a little bit in preparing for argument this morning and figure out exactly what happened in this case and i have all of the facts if that's at all relevant to the court about when he was transferred and where he went to different places and i'm not suggesting that we're going to necessarily reach the right thing in this case bit we're going to have to sooner or on the other and at other instances it has talked about ripening in terms of whether or not the proceedings before the agency are final in all of those cases something had been remanded whether it was for background checks or for further and i think you can ripening and so i'm happy to discuss the ripening case law but i think this is not the proper vehicle for this court to consider ripening because there is no finality issue there was a final decision is much more akin to the cases that method earlier today to present a decision in which i here unfortunately he that wasn't sufficient for him to get the decision and so the regulations there's there's no equitable tolling in these situations i mean that was made clear in saying there's no equitable tolling to allow for somebody who has moved individual who was trying to call nine one one and was holding on to the phone and trying to do so and that's and the force needed to swat a fly out of a hand is not to minimalists that the supreme court is addressing a similar issue and  right now and justice roberts even addressed this this necessary force and at the beginning of that argument he discussed and actually how does his law clerks and trying to get them to swat a dollar bill or to pull a dollar bill out of his hand and he said it takes a surprising amount of force to do so if somebody is trying to hold on to that dollar bill and so i'm looking at the context of graham not just simply phones why and this isn't a minor scuffle this is someone who is trying to call the question but that isn't the issue i don't think because the question is whether a violent physical force is required can textually the person may have been you know ordering pizza doesn't it that that doesn't really bear on the question of whether nevada permits something less than violent physical force to underlie this conviction and it seems to me that just removing the context it doesn't sound like  much it really doesn't and there's no there's no surrounding description of physical force saying you know that he practically broke a guy's army just knocked it out of his hand i injury to the person or the property and so that's where this case differs from the line of sentencing guidelines kay says under the sentencing guidelines there's no property aspect or object aspect and that's why you distinguish  which was this court's decision of last summer that was later amended and that case took out the reference to the force against the the property and so because it could be force against a property that's what it was graham the swatting of the phone is the property and it's capable of causing injury to the property and that's what's required under johnson and under the statute and in terms of the physical force that's required under valued you have to consider it in context that's what doing us all for us requires that's what's required for all of that's what johnson requires and looking to what it was so you know you kept saying he was calling nine one one that's why i'm asking is the result different if you were calling to order a pizza is an action that precludes someone from doing something that otherwise entitled to do when you're in trouble to order a pizza just like you're entitled to call nine one one then the argument would go the same it would be if there was a physical force that precluded someone from doing something they were entitled to due whether that was and in which this court talked about a strong physical force again i would submit that it's that twice one in a phone out of someone's hand especially that second time the person must know it's coming and is holding on fairly tightly to that  phone that's not a de minimus force and while the phone may be a small object it still requires a strong enough physical force to make it leave the person's hand so our position would be that as not to minimize this action so i think there's a lot of absurdity in this whole categor within the realm of it's criminal statute to hold people criminally culpable for these kinds of things and the more that the state embraces a larger realm of conduct to punish think this is happening with the states have an incentive in the federal government i mean given an incentive in terms of wanting to deport people who are convicted of these crimes and i think that's the tension you're seeing in this case the tension goes even further in this case of her going to look at all of the facts of what happened  you can even go there i agree we can't even look at what happened in this case and because the facts of what actually happened may or may not have line with what we're talking about today but the reality is that the supreme court has instructed us time and time again that this is what we have to do and we have to look at what the cases actually say and what's actually been criminalized and prosecuted and so we can't presume and hypothetically analyze that the state of matter will going exactly it is that's what they're taking us out of this demand this action all of the all of the actual cases that we can look two hundred one file for us in nevada discussing felony coercion which has this aggravating element of physical force which is different than battery and i'm happy to discuss that but all of the actual cases out of actually involve this physical force carlisle talked about the force of one victim to aid and holding the leg of another victim while he raped her called and talked about the threat to hit a child in his care and he threatened one child i'll hit you if you don't also have this other child all of these cases talk about actual physical force in getting somebody to do something that they wouldn't otherwise do and so looking at the actual cases that are punished and for the aggravating element or coercion and so the cases that i cite to are cases that of the conviction is been found to be sufficient either based on evidence or whatever challenge there was to the to the conviction itself and so we can look to the facts of those but there's been no cases that talk about the physical force elements of the other statutes in nevada that have the same aggravating physical force element there are several of them that we cite in our brief preventing or dissuading a person from testifying extortion of confession of an arrestee oppression under color of law there are no cases discussed in the physical force element of those there is one statute intimidating a public officer and that's nevada one ninety nine point three hundred and in that for that statute there were two cases that i found that kind of discussed this general rahman one was jones and that's three eighty six p third one thousand and one to two thousand and sixteen case and that involved someone holding a knife up to eight somebodies neck threatening remarks so that i would argue would be an immediate threat of physical force and another one would be deshler and that was threats while in an ambulance and that was found not to be sufficient because the individual did not have the capacity to carry out the threats he was restrained wall in and in an ambulance being transported someplace to a hospital or i would assume and because he was being restrained the threats that he made a physical force towards the officer were insufficient because he did not have the capacity to carry them out so i would that one would not be sufficient physical force under the statue and then the third or the final one would be placing a person in a house of prostitution in nevada and the one case i found there is an unpublished case of shark twenty fourteen west law one three nine six seven one one and that involved someone grabbing the victim by their hair and pulling them was sufficient as well force for placing a person in a house of prostitution for it to be that aggravating element to become a felony so our position would be that all of these aggravating elements when physical force is used as an aggravating elements in nevada law that it does require this this physical force that's necessary under johnson the court has no further question i don't believe so thank you you have some  context the court brushed aside the sophisms so sufficiency of the evidence challenge you know he didn't talk about the degree of force he just treated this is a fiction and it's not sufficient because separating a person from their property is not alone this court has also held that taking property from someone with a degree of force that does alert them to its taking still doesn't qualify as violent force there is a number of cases that say this walton for example the defendant jerks the person off the victim shoulder mollen are there was a tug of war over a wallet with a police officer and they just sent in a tug of war back and forth in the police officer said to his arm flew up in the air when he lost the tug of war the court said again that's not sufficient strickland there was a tug of war over a purse the court said again this is not sufficient the degree of for she is not greater than any of the degree of force used in any of these cases the government doesn't have a single analogous case from the circuit they would indicate that this is doesn't involve the use  violent force the second point i'd like to make is that the mere capacity for some kind of minor injury is insufficient for something to qualify as violent force in walton this court held that the force has to be substantial it has to be strong and the mere capacity for minor injury is not sufficient all we have in gram is the capacity for minor injury the phone wasn't broken there the battery popped out of the back so we would say there's no property damage at all but even if the court considers that minor property damage there still wasn't a substantial or strong force involved in that case and the last point i'd like to make is that the court has cited a number or excuse me the government has cited a number of conviction it did involve a violent force under johnson convictions under the felony coercion statute and we don't contest those convictions exist but the categorical approach focuses on cases at the margins of the statute and here we have an actual conviction in gr proceedings if the court has no further questions for us i don't believe we do thank you very much the case just for you to submit and we thank both counsel for the excellent arguments you also particularly appreciate