consideration than the nature of the mandatory nature of the withholding statute it's clear that the court found the statute to be unambiguous but when a law is decided there was no iraq which really is which court found not being aggravated felony was also not a particularly serious crime in doing that it had to construe the statute as would have to end up there because of the way the statute is written the real hold in the statute is written we have one part of the statute as a subsection of the statute that suits people with particularly serious crimes are not eligible for withholding and then we have a paragraph calling that with a modifying language and in border to give effect to the whole primarily on the plain language of the withholding statute and first of all any m and m age as b i a decisions do and properly go to  any part of this as a law in any type of crime to be particularly serious without reference to aggravated felony essentially means out both of the first and second paragraphs the the window that is created by the sub paragraph felony and five years the lineage the top of the window and a standard aggravated felony without saying may have absolutely had to be the same exact definition and again the way that congress constructed it could have been more artful but it made it clear that the withholding which is a mandatory silent which is the discretionary belief the floor might be dropped out below and it can still be i would acknowledge that that second subsection would allow for the attorney general with proper regulation to take  to regulation to drop the prior in withholding the attorney general is mandated if if it goes up and about five meters or so sort of different instructions in the statute for how real the attorney general  right so so if you look at that looking again at the decision we would the words some search suggest and implies in iraq a decision which do give the reader the sense that the court was doing some kind of an which didn't hold on a system but here's how we think that the court could get around the law which i think i have some serious questions about i think other courts have had those questions too so one is a conclusion that the brand x power was are at least two different ways to read the holy statute you could read that first section the way the government has to say that the rule is dead under under subsection to asylum authority to promulgated regulations that are describing categories of particularly serious crimes that are not necessarily aggravated felony i think that it's a right and ahead but i disagree with the idea that just because the attorney general authority to issue the regulations i don't think that means that the attorney general cannot by education also designate particularly serious crimes going to the tax or that statute eight us eleven fifty  is quoted does not preclude the attorney general from designating additional particularly serious transpired education even though it does explicitly empower him or her to do so doesn't matter whether it's it could therefore can never be aggravators down because it could be a felony so it the only way that this could be upheld is that that particular serious crime means something other than delany act i believe so i would want to research i just to make sure it could never be an x rated felony but i'm pretty sure in this case this was only ever going to be if anything particularly serious crime for context ok and there's think there are some cases that things that we would think of as if a federal statute it read some language out it that this court has the opportunity to fix and the poor recognize that in walking in what was it a bit of a fine line in finding that it had the considered by the government to been convicted of a particularly serious crime when that crime was in the system year where there was no ignition to that word mission to kill because it was a mere locally and weary is where are the standards then if we don't how the playing language reading