stated the issue just in terms of how i'm seen as i think that we have to do the straight statutory construction and we're limited to the record that we have been part of us and i know that there's a lot of argument about that the petitioner said that you know he didn't fill out the line because he didn't know whether we had to cut something or whatever now in my view i think we just have to look at the statute and see if there's any conduct under the statute the entire statute that might not be moral turpitude that we can't say on its face and whether his explanation it seems to me did he plead guilty or was he convicted he guilty your own right so he pled guilty and so he just pled guilty to the statute so we did and in the record we don't have any other than just the conviction we don't have anything else right yes your honor i did not represent this petition are on the underlying immigration court r b i a matter so yes we do not have anything in the record which would support the claims that are submitted in the immigration judges seems to me we're just stuck with the whole and the this court looked at section one thousand and one regarding the catch all false statement and the court found that a false statement by itself would not lead to a finding  but it involves an individual who had deprived the government of information when by leaving the united states had deprived the government a pretty hundred twenty seven thousand dollars and export duties and in that case the supreme court that that the only information and that only information had been deprived that the only party that had been i guess harmed was the government and that it was deprived of information in the instant matter not of the revenue your honor which is interesting even though there was no revenue paid in the instant matter that we do not have it in the record a proceeding we have the court has found when dealing with convictions under eighteen u s c one thousand and one and that that this is not a mal and say crime that it's not as the definition has language and he had submitted a form completed by someone else then it would have been willful even though it was under his own name and not knowing what was in the submission and perhaps we would argue that in this matter although we are tied to the record that to look at the regions that immigration just gays and those or but i guess what i have the most problems with and if you can spend some time with me on that would be the second part the willful omission part of that weather and what exactly is in the record  from what i can tell you have is plenty of convection and that's it so we can't go to the modified categorical approach right because we have nothing other than that so it's really comes down to is there any place in the statute  issues that were before the immigration judge she or mr no trash that lived at all argue that this is a little statue in fact the first time it came up was before this court consequently when the immigration got to look at this case it is no evidence i the government would necessarily say that that would be the definition then then what is that phrase than to make a statement without reasonable cause to believe that this thing when this crew it appears of the government just language just that the event the very intentional it would be intentional if you did not know that it's not true exactly well ok but can you say that is synonymous with intent to defraud obviously with if you've got intent to defraud you've got moral turpitude in your that you're home free you don't have that here that offense are there any questions from the court don't appear to be further questions thank you counsel