endangerment and i'm not drawing just a fine distinction that doesn't exist in the law california is very clear that when you have a crime of neglect you have to have a heart that results that i didn't see in the i j a rather clearly the excuse for the way i read the record is that when the da considered mr ogle harvest appeal they didn't look at the site they consider the second ground to be conceded they said well he did his challenge only goes to the first count as well this is a crime of involve violence and i can't be removed on that basis and didn't specify whether that pertains to count want to count to you know obviously because he was convicted of the aggregate because he was considered to have been convicted of magritte felony that's what the i g found i mean in the when mr ogle haro says my crime is not a crime of violence that is true with respect to the aggravated felony aspect but it's also true with respect to whether it's a crime of domestic violence crime of child abuse or crime of child  now there's two ways you can i think you should just go with the general rule that proceedings are liberally construed gun he's about as pro se as pro se yes and his aunt it's equally applicable to ground to now if i don't convince you with that then there's the alternative rationale which i think you know explained from baldwin versus reefs where the supreme court intimated that when you have something that involves an identical argument and that's of course in  ground of exhaustion if it's an exact mirror with respect to another ground in you raise the argument by bringing against the crime of violence like any in the hideous context somebody says i was tortured in violation of the california constitution and it turns out california constitution has the exact same protection as the eighth amendment so that when you raise talk of the constitution you are raising an identical argument to federal constitution mathematical argument which is if your argument is my crime is not a crime of violence because it doesn't involve any after the use of force that rationale as to why it's not an aggravated felony is the same the exact on the domestic violence there was no discussion of the child abuse so far as i can find in the record of the child neglect do you agree with that oh absolutely ok so i've given that fact when the record has this petition are exhausted is administrative remedies with respect to this first issue of the child abuse child like as opposed to the domestic violence well i mean that's that's two sides of the pickle i was just speaking of which  that is not the mens rea of the crime he was convicted of credible if the take a second part them in your opening brief i don't believe you mentioned the child abuse or the child like you focused on the other doesn't that constitute a waiver of that particular argue about appeal well here's how i viewed it when i when i read your record it's very clear to me that the i g had found that down the basis of the i did ruling was look this is a crime of violence this was i think it downey involving the use of force that was the i guess spying and then he adopted the ensuing refining of we i also agree with the government that this is a crime of domestic violence child abuse or child neglect now it seems to me clear that if you're saying this is an active crime that when you adopt the second when you're concerned the second finding then you're saying that this is a crime of domestic violence or child abuse you can't be saying it's a crime child neglect because that's an indirect use you know application of force if it's going to if you can fit into the crime of violence you know category that means the only tool you could fit into for the second round remove ability is domestic violence and child abuse cannot be child neglect and it just seemed to me pretty obvious that those are mutually exclusive not address the child abuse the child neglect does not constitute waiver i don't think it does because i believe that the ground that the idea is analysis well yeah if you actually found just what i disputed this second hypothetical ground i simply point out that when when you appeal for your client you you have the burden to raise the issues that you believe would carry you to the promised land if you don't raise them you wave them to you things one of those cannot fit so i don't believe that could be a god who believes if you're the court finds this is the ground and that was clearly diet is finding then yeah you're right i would but i don't think that that's what the i j a found i think that is and that makes convictions for child abuse and child neglect removeable offenses no question regarding this ground group remove ability is properly before the court north petition or a challenge issue regarding relief from removal you should regarding the grant of removal are both waived and exhausting i'm sorry are not are neither way i'm sorry they are waived and alternatively they have not been exhausted seventy of his decision he simply the government's arguments as to why the petitioners removal under that provision he adopts the government's arguments that appear at page three of three of you misread a record the government's conviction is not an aggravated felony and he cannot be removed based on that conviction respondent conviction i'm reading it exactly the right respondent conviction does not have an elements of violence under the circumstances and the requirement they were forced to read the appeal liberally doesn't he trying to encompass the larger universe of what he had been charged with along the lines of what you're opposing counsel litigant basically recognizes that his aggravated felony ground of removal precludes relief but he's got a shot at relief if he can knock out the aggravated felony ground removal that's what he's trying to do his finding and he adopted the government's reasoning that you know for ground to know this is a crime of child abuse domestic violence or child neglect now those are exclusive categories they cannot be all three you cannot commit a crime that is bo government's invitation and remand the matter to be in the first instance to decide whether this conviction really is you know the crime of child abuse or neglect but to some degree you're contradicting yourself aren't you counsel because on the one hand you are saying you don't raise it in your and you're awfully brief it's kind of hard to have it both ways i think of to say that if he indeed actually raised it and exhausted it but didn't argue distinctly in the opening brief then that would constitute a waiver