forty seven the potential sentence of his conviction was braden sixty five days as your honour's are aware in two thousand and fifteen the california legislature amended the potential sentence on the maximum sentence for a misdemeanor to be three hundred and sixty four days and in two thousand and seventeen they made that retroactive to tast a final conviction it's important to look at why they did that they did that in order to align the inadmissibility into particularly statute because the immigration statue  change to the definition of a misdemeanor in california in order to align with the clear meaning of these removal press visions which was to not deport somebody for a single a misdemeanor c m t that's minor  classifies and what's notable is that right after race two years after i see a little has come down the court issued salazar mohican which is a criminal resenting case in two thousand and eleven and that comes down prior to make meal and to whether or not the defendant was deported for a felony offense and even if it changes later after the report patient backward looking just you know counsels right and so there is a dual track that we're looking sentence for the nd criminal act looking back to see what their prior contract was in the st with a prior sentence within the st but an immigration case it's a simple consequence that sends directly from the condition right there's no subsequent criminal will give you some extra bubble time so don't worry i think well you should do is try to answer as fully as you can to these questions so you heard mr boots was argument for the government in the earlier case so is it your position that if a state increase if  initially been sentenced to a misdemeanor which wouldn't bring him under the statute under the federal statute but if the state decided that they want to have harsh or immigration consequences in federal law could could could have stayed increased his sentence retroactive how do you respond to mr bruce's argument that he made earlier the consequence of permitting a retroactive change could lead to different states taking different it's on point with this particular case it's it doesn't control the outcome in this case my colleague has already discussed why that he's an opposite and then was dealing with a completely different situation involving a state court classification over while the statute was a felony or misdemeanor so the notion that garcia's lopez is binding on this court control the outcome we would reject that and we think the court should reject that as well there's an argument that's also raised in petitions be they don't think was raised in the prior case they attorney general abrogated that and really course corrected back to the original rule which has long been a spouse by the courts of appeals including this court so we argue of course in our brief of those cases were not does it anyway but now they're really in opposite you know they've been abrogated so many reliance on that case was really no longer i think about argument of petitioners also sort of potential rely on a distinction between a criminal cases in immigration cases and they this already contrary to this group love but it's also i think contrary to sort of what we commonly recognize about the way we deal with criminal law in the immigration context and i'm sure you're owners are more than familiar with the cattle who approaches in the way we criminal immigration case the issue in that case was what the pertinent time that was being analyzed under that statue us in this case we're looking at the time of indiction in cells or case the court was looking at whether a felony had been committed prior to states wind blows that would create a real chaotic scheme and while i certainly chip of the point that the scheme now is very complex and often creates differences between states the notion that should be made even worse than it should be then create situations were criminal defendants don't even know what the consequences of their crimes are for for immigration purposes the court should reject we think that takes things a step too far and allows the state of california to usurp  whichever way it was going to interpret the statute now i think a civil reading of or take a look at is anybody reading the case i think would be hard pressed to say that the poor wasn't providing a pretty well reasoned analysis you could say i know th but there wouldn't be much point in removing a case from the board if there was only one reasonable outcome to the case right and it's implicit in reason and for the board provide reason escalation is that there is more than one reasonable interpretation if there was only one reasonable inter in other portions of the statute indicating its intent to keep the term separate i'd also point out that also persuasive is that every other circuit court to have considered this issue at all reached the same conclusion that the temple of the temple requirement does history but a simple reading of the or take a look at his decision really lies that the board dedicated a great deal of his decision to analyzing the legislative history and explaining why he did not think it was persuasive among  those there's a whole plethora of reasons why that is which position i don't even respond to in your opening reply brief but it's just suggested the word somehow ignored the legislative history that i think is inaccurate based on the  i so going back to the proud of this engine from this year that was an interesting case and that the sentence was irrelevant for the consequences there that consequence being drug trafficking right the drug trafficking immigration law statute doesn't matter it doesn't matter if it's a misdemeanor or felony if you've engaged in drug trafficking period then you are it admissible and so it is just i think it's distinguishable there from this case here where we're looking at the actual potential sentence and that's what creates the consequence of the portability or in eligibility for cancellation of removal going up to back to the issue of a legislative change versus a court imposed change i think we're even stronger in a situation where we have a legislative change because it's mandating that all of the courts we classify reading here redefine a misdemeanor so again rather than having an individual court go back and change each offense and exercising their discretion for instance if the legislature actually required that all of the courts do that by legislation and so we're even in a stronger context and r c l of us lopez went with court imposed on the sentence and last just going to the forty eight b just not have any language that references potential sentences now obviously matter thomas and johnson came out in the middle of briefing on this case and so if the court is concerned as to whether or not twenty general's