aggravated felony crime of violence over twenty five years earlier that decades old conviction and from the state of wyoming for attempted voluntary manslaughter has been in dispute for years now in these proceedings and both the immigration judge and the board of immigration appeals ruled that although everyone agrees that a fence does not include an element for the requirement of malice indistinguishable from nd degree murder in terms of the elements under wyoming law and in riley and bloomfield the wyoming supreme court explicitly held that intent interpretation of its own laws and because the wyoming supreme court has repeatedly held that both its nd degree murder and ontario manslaughters that you do not require an intent to kill that persuasive or binding in this case in light of those decisions and because it intends to kill is not an element the entire premise on which the agency's reasoning in this case  on that that that the whole line of reasoning falls there really is no basis for the finding that without an intent to kill that taking a substantial step toward an action that is capable of killing another person is itself required requires the use of force and we illustrated multiple examples of cases in which a person can cause the death of another person without engaging in conduct that would constitute the use of force and focusing on three primary categories st being aiding and abetting suicide essentially the government's position is that it is not possible to kill another person without using force and we use out of state cases not to cite the legal princip use force when you tell someone else by overcoming their will to do something they are they are the ones that are pulling the trigger or you're the one that is essentially guiding the point of trigger isn't i it's a complicated question to answer i understand what you're asking judge school and certainly if the intent is to kill something like that could be attempted murder whether attempted poisoning or the other examples that you cited could be attempted manslaughter under the right set of facts i think the answer is ye certainly in that case the prosecution was based on a death that was caused by volatile voluntary poisoning of one's self of the victim in the case and i think that gets back to judge p that is where the question of the required intent becomes most relevant if if a person takes a substantial step towards doing something that could cause another person's death all that is required under wyoming law under the cases i mentioned previously is that they intend to do that act and that they have the mens rea are required for the completed offense which is just knowingly doing the acts not with the intent to commit a particular desired result and that is what distinguishes some you know attempted suicide for example encouraging suicide while not actually charged whether that person used what we would all agree is force or or whether that person died by poisoning or some form of chemical death and that's also similar to the prosecutions under a failure to protect or failure to ameliorate harm theory of prosecutions such as the failure to seek care for someone who had themselves overdosed on a controlled substance or  cases based on religious or other failure to seek medical treatment for someone in one's charolais a parent seeking medical treatment for a child that again those things can cause a person's death even if one does not intend  t and this really does force us to consider what is the definition of attempt under wyoming law and whether the completed offense also would constitute a crime of violen and there were a number of legal errors and factual errors committed by the immigration judge and affirmed by the board of immigration appeals with respect to that essentially all of the preliminary findings that were considered and requirement the whether you look at the attempted statute or if whether you look at the voluntary manslaughter statute underwhelming you have intentional conduct within the meaning  of passion and wyoming courts have interpreted that element as requiring intentional conduct so that's the substantive offense we have intentional conduct as it's been interpreted by the wyoming courts explain the difference decision that you cannot cause someone physical injury without force the idea is that if a statute includes the cause ation of physical injury then it necessarily include force and i and i want to point out that this court there's a long line of cases that have applied this castleman type of reasoning that if the statute requires causing physical injury or  of physical force it fell outside of the definition of crime of violence but the court rejected that instead of course that it doesn't you don't need an expressed element of use of force it's inherent in in this in the element that because the categorical approach has become very convoluted and challenging and to expect the agency in courts to engage in an analysis of how off the fifty states prosecutor statutes would be an impossible task but putting aside the procedural objections that the government has the state statutes that petitioner relies on all of them except one involved reckless or negligent conduct that much that excludes under wyoming case law accidental death so there is there is simply that those statutes and how they're applied has no relevance here because they involve different elements in of in of course johnson's definition and the reason is that castleman the supreme court explaining that you know it's not just sprinkling of the poison that that involves violent physical force statute would reach an omission but so we really don't think that's before the court but to the extent that the court goes there we i'll just point out that six or kids have already rejected that idea  wonder and you know we're cognizant of that i think the immigration judge noted that but i think cat protection is really intended to catch or capture more severe types of claims and harm and it's a really high burden and we think that the record supports the agency's conclusion starting with clear probability of future torture and the i j a properly considered three factors the st is the past harm that mental illness or chronically homeless are at a higher risk of being harmed by criminals or gang members in under us and instead you know  and looking at his past harm he's even admitted that it is a word he was targeted for financial reasons or criminal motives for extortion or robbery and so you know it's sort of a generalized  burden on the petitioner where he looked at the i j a looked at affirmative evidence of internal relocation rather than pointing to the absence of evidence of you didn't show that you couldn't live here safely so w looking at the individual lies evidence or admitted that he was able to file three police reports and that he the police followed up on one of the more severe incidents that he experienced so that there continue to be problems with corruption but on balance the immigration judge properly found that that added at generalized evidence along with the particular lies evidence that  domestic violence which is itself a term of our within the context of a criminal statute for having possession of firearms by certain people and in that context the court st held that the phrase misdemeanor crime of domestic violence incorporates a common law definition of battery which includes any offensive touching which would not meet the definition of violent force required by law accountable and to under the definition of crime of wyoming i think the best way to describe why he was convicted of that offense is that it was an imperfect self defense case that the best understanding i could get in the context of  because the current state of emergency law is that the court does not have to make a separate finding of current dangerousness regardless of the age of the offense although that that that principle is contrary to international human rights law that is the state of our law that we're stuck with and so i hope that answers your question with my remaining time i will just say most of the cases cited by the government that they claim answer these questions really arise in the