your argument now in the case of united states against d the court my name is lauren mclaren i represent the appellant and this case involves a proceeding to divest a naturalized citizen mr davidge of his citizenship and the government's contention that mr da they illegally procure that citizenship case presents two questions for this court whether as a matter of law mr davia was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude and whether there exists a genuine issue of material fact as to whether mr davi was ineligible for naturalization as a result of having committed unlawful acts that it firstly reflect upon his moral character in a proceeding to divest a naturalized citizen of his citizenship the government carries a heavy burden to prove its case by clear unequivocal and convincing evidence here the government has failed to meet that burden by failing to show that mr davian was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude and by failing to show that no genuine issue of material fact as to whether he was constitute crimes of moral turpitude no your honor so many of those cases did not look to the minimum conduct using the categorical croce and oftentimes to actually say we're dealing with require the victim to be an age much less than the of the individual case would not be at issue here what we looked she was the minimum conduct that is punishable under the statute at hand so in this case that's what i'm referring to the minimum conduct would be sexual conduct between a twenty two year old and a person i canned and they found it to not rise to the level of inherently bass viol or to pray that the court also found that the statute defined conduct that was not prohibited in other states or conduct that is malum prohibitum as is with the illinois statute at hand and therefore it's not invalid in say offense therefore the crime for which mr dobbie was convicted cannot categorically involve moral turpitude i would also like to add here the government does not dispute that the cracked approach to apply in this case is the categorical approach the district court further erred in granting summary judgment as the government failed to show that even if mr dobbie was not convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether he ineligible for naturalization as a result of the unlawful acts provision and the regulations here the question is whether or not u s c i s would have denied collins application even if the crime does not constitute one involving moral turpitude this is a question of material facts that cannot be resolved on a motion for summary judgment the u s c i ask policy manual clearly states that a good moral character determination is made by u s c s in relation acts provision on a case by case basis and the attorney general therefore retains discretion to prove an application because no statute or regulation alone categor during the time of the truth or in and this kind of age gap would be might be socially acceptable right do you want to offer her the testimony of a psychologist about whether this is socially application if the crime is not constant you want in but the question is whether an agency would have done something the question is what characterization does that just report but at the district judge gets to make this d choice and and use the proper method in the case therefore we argue that that does create a genuine issue a material fact in the case should be remanded back to the district court for further review because the crime does not automatically disqualify him f naturalization it respectfully if there's no further questions i would like to reserve my time for a bottle  different ages of consent and some state illinois is one of them allows minors to marry below the age of consent with a parent's permission in what you mention in the cases were an individual can marry with the consent of the peninsula if they have the consent of their parent they have a supervisory authority that can determine whether the actions are going gays are the  minor is mature enough for those activities whereas here the illinois community law that prohibits a contact between peonage or and somebody who is at least five if not more eight years older those laws are designed to reflects on the individual's good moral character and i want to move to i want to move to the to the main point of our argument this is and that is that the crime that they committed and along at that adversely reflects on his moral character and regulation first of all this court in swat is found that it was a reasonable construction of the good moral character statute so there is so to the extent that there may have been so ability fact that an action that an act is legal in meets the problem of a lawful second the act adversely reflects on his moral character we are talking about an individual who had sex with a fifteen year old fifteen year old girl of appeals mr dami has brought no has pointed to no facts that would explain why he was there were extenuating circumstances or why there may have been extenuating circumstances and he just kind of show should be revoked and set aside now in terms of interest of the arguments that date that darva have brought to to this court so that it argues that there should be an issue as to there is an issue as to the person was eligible for naturalization to begin with who the person was not then the naturalization was illegal to have to work and there is no furthermore there is no equitable discretion in granting or not granting or or revoking naturalization so if an individual's if an individual illegally procure citizenship there is simply no equitable discretion to refuse to enter on or and also into thousand and fifteen version was clearly you know political by then and second your honor in would regard to the second point d the yes we are and and this crime in its minimal conduct even if we're looking not be forgiven if we're looking at conduct involved then the person who was sixteen with a person who was twenty two as plainti has found otherwise that decision first of all it is not binding it is an outlier and as the court thinking taylor said the court of confederal relied on the purposes of california law which were to the decision in can are not up with the ball in this case i'm not in the process was there some time when he lied about something or didn't disclose something that would jeopardize their has ation and done so i'm sorry i couldn't hear what i mean i'm trying to draw clear up is there something i mean this is sort of up to gotch through the process where this occurred he was naturalized and then something subsequent to that he was discovered as having misrepresented something in the past or lied about it or something yes i know my time is up but i quickly explained a timeline searcher so he first he puts up the application in the ma was made by the district court as to whether the acts are firstly i'm adversely affected as moral character there is a genuine issue of material fact as whether these acts adversely reflect upon its moral character and this alone is enough to rema d the case to the district court and if there is nothing further thank you for your time thank you very much the case is taken under advisement