crime however of the assault for conviction they held that because he had conceded that the immigration for in the hearing give way the issue for appeal unique in the sense that the record seems to indicate that you far probably consider in mystic violence but i take it that that cannot come into the makeup of whether this person should stay in the country in a civil case because in your answer is seeking in this case we may need for cancellation he's clearly eligible he's clearly eligible neither one of these was a serious crime you have to remember through the two hundred ventre earth to give them a shot not at all because the issue good morning john you're trying to have the united states attorney general first of all you are as i just like to make very clear that i cancellation of removal actually wasn't at issue here before the board strictly styron and withholding to remove one match against torture considered the charge of remove ability and in fact all he conceded was that the crime of violence was domestic in nature in this case it's the charge removal you that was conceded there was no persistence that you can see to that in fact immigration judge set the case aside to give them an opportunity to look at the new charge that was presented by the service rather the current homeland security at that point it came back there was a an off the record discussion which the in this decision that with respect to the drug trafficking charges as an aggravated felony it's said that we cannot find that it is an aggravated felony because of the prevailing case law that came up after the fact so it didn't just take the concession and run with it and try to dispose of a case based on that it's found that the law that applied at that time for that charge was had to be applied to spite the concessions of all parties with respect to the other charge for the crime of violence i think it can be we are not removeable although he says i'm not an angry felon there is no concession that there is no statement that withdraws that concession of remove ability most of the matters that are discussed have to do with  clerk's docket with respect to the crime violence charge she conceded that though it didn't put the government to its burden on that case so it's at this point he's arguing that that concession should be wiped away the government was prevented from presenting for the modified approved we should be given you should be given the government should be given the opportunity to make the record the good under the taylor got a gurgle through exactly what the modified approach your honor  put the government to its burden they can do that in the very first state to allow them to come back after an appeal has been following the trial that and not give the government opportunity presented evidence to support its charge i think would be unfair to the government convictions the attempted possession of cocaine which is very elaborate and the record of conviction for this for this cage which all that existed was that out of three or four page docket it's in the record they were not prejudiced at all  on that and they want another bite at the apple that we would say that specifically the second issue here is the problem with the problem with the waiver and the waiver argument is that what the government is asking is that this court killed now because there has to be a basis for the plea either factual or legal in this case there is neither there's neither and there's neither a factual nor legal basis for the for this this conviction to be a crime of violence basis for this assault for a conviction under the modified category all to approach to be a crime of violence and it would have to be that's what we would say that the court would have to