is a long term permanent resident of eighteen years he was placed in remote heating oil based on the government's assertion that he had convictions for a violation of their cuckold ten five one as well as weather petition was a long time permanent resident the united states he had apply for naturalization in the united states had taken the exam the only thing that was absent was he actually taking the oath for the that's definition of national set forth and it u s c eleven to one it defines a national as an individual who is a citizen or person though not a citizen also a permanent allegiance to the united states what additional facts if any would have to be proven so then you've got a predominant so in my view doesn't control the situation i think if we look at perdomo we look at that analysis and then compare that analysis to the actual which was generally held in your favor but the supreme court has sent that fact for reconsideration in light of the way you asked so probably we're going to have to wait and see what our court doesn't pay and you are probably to cope with this argument i understand you have been my tentative conclusion shut case because you're trying to make a distinction between whether someone had the intent to deprive temporarily as opposed to permanently and in this case paris karanja khurana said there was no intent to deprive period the immigration judge raised that issue the immigration judge asserted that a street gang wouldn't be and which isn't the type of social group that deserve protection he made and a comparison between someone not the heart of withholding claims to look at the issue of persecution now although the courts have recognized that although there are groups who may be socially under saddle we look at the streaking in the way the street game was the nazi party and a clue klux klan that you know you know your argument would think there are laws that prohibit well they don't prohibit but there are laws that identify nazi war criminals hiding in the united states who lied about their participation in the nazi party to get into the united states and the laws say once we figure out that you take your way and united states by denying your past we can actually denaturalized you take your citizenship away and then deport you to another country and it seems that your position would allow nazis and under those circumstances to claim they belong to a particular social group and be able to use the immigration laws to avoid being sent out of why the number social group he was asserting that he was a former gang member and him being a former gang member him having a tattoo of him having to share a past experience with something he couldn't change and with it was exactly those characteristics his past experience and these are medical care to reason why he would be targeted for persecution you don't want to have any cases that say if you're no longer a member of that social group if you're not allowed you're no longer a member of that social group when you appear before the immigration authorities good morning once again your honour's may please the court my name is jonathan roberts and i'm here on behalf of the respondent in this matter your honour's this petition for review should be dismissed because section two forty two a to c of the immigration and nationality act precludes this court from having jurisdiction to review a final order of removal and where the petitioner has been convicted of a criminal offense in this case conviction of possession of methamphetamines under california help us now to be sure of what the irrelevant it's not relevant i'll get to that demand because right he is making an argument here because the court does retain limited jurisdiction in certain certain situations for example to determine whether or not the bar at two forty two a to c applies and certainly he does that with his argument as a national and with certain he was convicted of an aggravated felony well there was evidence presented after a during the course of the proceedings at first it was they they looked at the controlled substance violation and had originally to initially determine that it was an aggravated felony however as qualify as a national that's a question we posed by the promo video which says that the only way you can become a national is through birth or naturalisation based on the records year he did attempt to apply for citizenship but he never completed that citizenship and therefore he's not a national against one of the alvarez and the supreme court in that decision was dealing with the exact same statute under which the petitioners the conviction for felony driving and says that it is indeed a theft offense and therefore it is an aggravated felony under the immigration and nationality  it's the exercise to control the criminal intent to deprive whether it's permanent or took whether it's intended to be a permanent or temporary taking so joyriding even if you give joyriders the benefit of the doubt and assume they're going to leave it in the garage where they took the car were or wherever it's still  they maybe they feel there is an issue there that the that they haven't addressed or that wasn't before the court and want to solve or as i'm not i can't speak to what the reasoning was all i know is that on this particular point they specifically determined that the differentiation between a permanent  situation i don't think it's really necessary in this case your honor because the petitioner wasn't convicted of doing writing here he was convicted of felony unlawful driving under the exact same statute that was that was put forward that that was a immigration of the immigration judges bias the petitioner here has implied that because the immigration that the immigration judge somehow insinuated that certain groups were more deserving of withholding of removal than others and that's simply i'm not in any way disputing that but the government's position here is is tenuous because i think just to give you an idea of where the ramadan case is right now the government just recently submitted its views to determine whether or not that he should it's important to note here that the immigration judge and the board found that he was himself a persecutor as part of these gangs during the immigration judges hearing during the merits testimony the petitioner admitted to seeking out rival gang members with his friends and persecutor you can't claim that you're going to be person that this is these are social groups persecuted beating up each other that he's so persecutor well i've gotten a little ahead of myself here because i really should've started with the fact that these particular types of the group that he claims to be is not a particular social group and now he's saying that he has this shared experience of past gang membership but he himself admits that he's a former gang member it's not an immutable characteristic i want to be a persecuted don't have to persecute people on account they're protected you know one of the protect the cattle cars yes and what comes back now and what he's claiming is that he persecuted these rival gang members other social group members exactly well i want to be careful here because i want to social groups you're arguing that former members are social group yes but you'd be an interesting catch twenty two i mean if you're arguing that the gang was a social group then your client is a persecutor because he