petition for review and any questions the panel may have concerning the arguments i briefed in this matter and in that context i'd like to suggest that the question before the court is relatively straightforward and he deals with the intent of eight u s c section twelve twenty seven a wanting and whether the intent of that stash and when  calls for removing an alien who is found to have been in admissible at the time the decision to adjust their status or met them was made in accordance with the law at the time whether that's meant to provide the government with the unrestricted unfettered ability to reeducate a decision as to the admission or adjust my status of a non citizen alien at any time until such time as that person becomes a citizen or whether that statute is merely meant as a tool for the government to remedy an error in the application of facts to law at a particular point in time is your argument that there has to be case law at the time somebody is convicted before a crime can be found to be one involving moral  so if let's say that let's say that kano did not exist our decision connell did not exist we would have to decide today whether or not mr gon resisting arrest with violence constituted a crime of moral turpitude right yes your honor so how does that make it any different from the situation we find ourselves in today sure and that is a very good question and i believe has been misunderstood through the whole entire process in this case there is a significant difference your honor between an applicant for adjustment of status and a lawful permanent resident who the government's trying to the question was before the court whether that person was inadmissible at that time the question before the court now was whether the person was in the miscible in one nine hundred ninety eight and here your argument then is that in an inadmissibility scenario you can always decide crime of moral turpitude in the future even though there was no case law at the time of the conviction but that it's different when the government is trying to withdraw would take away someone's permanent residence yes your honor because ok so if you if i are writing the book on how this is done what is it that we're supposed to look at we're supposed to look at the law and on nineteen when was he convicted that suggested but the statute the statute says that determination as to whether the person what's in it and admissible at the time of adjustment is made in accordance with the law at the time and so i'm not suggesting you are you are you argue that the law changed the same statute changed your honor what i'm arguing is that you answer that question yes it's a statute jay you know what i'm saying is that it's not my it's not my burden to a stand up talk about burden i just honor just that interpretation and the same question whether the interpretation today is different from the one tomorrow or if there was no interpretation on the books yesterday does that mean there what but that what's that mean that made the day if we decide it was a crime of moral turpitude like a cato we're deciding it for the first time and we're changing the law you're either changing the wrong or you're establishing the law or clarifying the law for your purposes or change it you think there has to be precedent on the books at the time of the conviction in a scenario like this one no no your was crime of moral turpitude of course i said it was all you can does argue you know what your honor they didn't say that because they approved his application they granted him lawful permanent resident and this part with the knowledge  conviction they had nothing to do well let me put it this way your honor the government claims they didn't have knowledge of the count of the conviction that the record of proceedings does not reflect that it actually reflects the opposite as part of the proceedings the government provided a copy of the applicant's adjustment application or indicated he had been arrested and the the government said we didn't have the records it was just an allegation that was abandoned him in proceedings because there was no evidence to that effect so before the record of proceeding before the court leaves no conclusion other than there was a decision to grant him off a permanent resident fifteen years later when he applied for citizenship somebody looked at that in light of know and say wait a minute that's a crime involving moral turpitude and what i'm saying is that in order for them to be able to go back and make a new this decision on that they had to make it according to them they the fact that the term crime involving moral turpitude is not a term be fine by statute and based on the board of immigration appeals case law it's a turn back and vary from one period of time to the next well but if let's go down that i want to go over your time for a second but here if that's your view there's a decision by the board of immigration appeals in one thousand nine hundred eighty called matter of  holds that aggravated assault on a police officer because it involves violence to intentionally interfere with a lawful functions of a peace officer is a crime of moral turpitude it seems to me that that decision is materially indistinguishable from resisting arrest with violence which also involves the use of some violence or some force to interfere with the lawful functions of an officer so if your argument is that you have to look at what people or the community thought of moral turpitude at that time of the conviction you've got to be look at the state of the law at the time the conviction and that post dates the time of conviction if you can look at what the u s c i s did then you can look at conall two and in a fight between those two car wins under the logs assisting at that time in one thousand nine hundred eight as now the elements of resisting a police officer with violence require that the defendant knowingly and willfully resisted obstructed or opposed an officer in gage unlawful execution of a legal duty by offering or doing violence to the person of the officer and as as noted this court has previously confirmed and encana that the same statute of conviction  was a crime involving moral turpitude and there they relied on matter of dinesh the agency here considered can o and look to the board's prior recognition that violence against an officer is a crime involving moral turpitude the petitioner statute of conviction fits within the board's guidance in matter of dinesh and that it requires knowledge by the accused that he was assaulting a police officer engaged in the performance of his duties and requires force and violence can no confirmed this even though issued many years after petitioners in one thousand nine hundred eight conviction and therefore did not itself exist at the time of the one thousand nine hundred adjustment of status its reasoning and reliance on matter of the nash confirm that resisting an officer with violence has at all relevant it's just a decision by the adjustment officer and it's it's not binding on this court in any way what was the rationale of like a law it was a single officer what was the rationale provided if any  my understanding is that and this isn't anything that the agency decided but just from in order to respond your question just from looking at the decision the u s c s decision in the record  believe that there were a couple reasons that just one officer found that it wasn't a crime involving moral turpitude and one was that it was simple assault but i don't think that's correct because  officer so i don't i don't i think that that that shows violence and i think that that would be distinguishable from from something like battery for instance simple battery word be an  statute the florida statute also extends to offering to do violence against the police officer but florida courts have said that that offer to do violence is pretty much the same thing as an attempt and under longstanding board precedent an attempted crime involving moral turpitude or and i'm sorry an attempt at an attempt offense if the underlying offense honor if there are there and if there are no further questions then i would respectfully request the court denied the petition for review i think you it's through you i asked the question about the difference the burglar proof or the route she could miss ability were really the applicants versus the government spurting were to remove proceedings yes i think and you said there was a distinction that was something that was meaningful should be meaningful in this decision and so i went back to he cannot we can i thought that was ken who is exactly the same and i found in fact it is can a circumstance are exactly the same he had had his status adjusted to a permanent lawful adjusted to that of a lawful permanent resident i'm reading from the background information it can a case turpitude and therefore he was removed for the crime he committed after being a lawful permanent resident in this case mr gonzalez's conviction occurred before he was granted off or permanent resident and here we reveal that conviction and the government made a decision that ok you're still eligible at that time they could have said you're not eligible and he would have had the opportunity to apply for a waiver they didn't do that so it's not an issue of burden of proof then it's a being removed under is different than the statute mr khanna was removed under and the statute that mr gonzales is being removed under as an element of the ground of remove all looks at the law at the time and later this court issues that decision totally contrary to to that finding so my our position is that at the time that the government seeks to remove gonzalez it's der burn a proof to show that the decision they made in one thousand ninety eight was a wrong decision as a matter of law but it's clear under the law it was a wrong decision and ours and our position is they can't do that because even the week before this court's decision in canada they were still holding the same position that is not a crime involving moral turpitude and so therefore they didn't make a mistake they're and we're simply saying again as i said in the beginning the question is relatively straightforward what is the intent of eight of eight u s c one two two seven is it to look back at any time