that so you know i would say that they have conceded that i mean their briefs seem to point out as much however they also just submitted a forty j letter saying that the abstract of minutes maybe the evidence that the court can look at request for a hearing so will given that i mean i would say the government has conceded in the really the issue is appropriate remedy so i'll move forward to that that's good for you  had that language actually decided not to remain on the case it decided that in that setting remained was improper and it really looked at several different factors for making that conclusion and all of those factors are the same factors that are relevant here the first you think about it from the standpoint i mean if there weren't a change in the law you lose so if if there is a change in the law and at that time they weren't required to produce any more than they  principal there's some sort of you know different language in the colloquy and then also in the transcript of the immigration judge so it's difficult but really the point is i mean the government shouldn't at this point i mean  the transfer of just is close and they shouldn't be submitting other evidence saying hey if we got another shot we would do it right this time and we'd be able to tell i was different then it was a category it categorically they won back then well the thing is though just to address that point  actually decides to do a published opinion on the statute would conclude that it was a modified high court house which unpublished opinions with fifty judges you know i mean you know how did they have know it was he said that time there was no point the point is you know why is the government supposed by putting in all kinds of stuff that just wasn't necessary to clear ruling that this was all true and that's what they put in in front of their reveal and they aren't the ultimate arbitrator arbiter of that and they are deference for those opinions so i mean it is an opinion that they give to guide their immigration judges but it certainly doesn't receive deference at this point you know in the ninth circuit is reviewing that notice which is the government's claiming that they don't have they didn't have notice that this could possibly be the test that i'm just saying that there were these two cases and that taylor had been around a long time and that the nice circuit had been applying the tailor test in the immigration waste my time is your argument then that they're supposed to be in contempt of court with the judge and still produce evidence on because they need to see at some point in the future you know the current act to predict th right that's right on both cases are decisions right so all we really know is on the basis of what was present to the b o i that might me fear that the board was a nudist that it needed to reduce any additional documentation that the alien and the guilty to conduct other than accessory after the fact conduct based on those two points it really is important that this case goes back to the board  no tash versus gonzales which you know i didn't put that cited in my brief but i have it it's four twenty seven f third six ninety three which is actually a decision where there was where the b i relied on its own precedent and supreme court decision in the ninth circuit in that case held that that was incorrect and the immigration judge had not apply the modified categorical approach that only applied to categorical approach and the ninth circuit in that case granted the petition and bit earlier about other reasons why we manned is improper i mean mr on day he this case has been going on six years back in two thousand and three the full record was there or we wouldn't still be in the situation and he wouldn't be in limbo he spent four years