medleys the court i'm thomas mosley counsel for the petitioner the central error in the board of immigration appeals decision under review here is equating a purpose to evade the act with a purpose under the criminal statute in twenty six seven to a one or of they doing the selective service requirement or of aiding currency requirements but also when when congress has sought to impose adverse consequences for concede is that there may be an ambiguity in defining there may be an ambiguity in defining purpose there may be an ambiguity in defining under but what but but the but the air of the board in this case i submit is that they never explained that they never explain how a purpose to evade the act is something that saying basically that it has to be it can't be avoiding avoiding something but why why is that a reasonable well that is not the test under chevron  its own laws well what two points in that regard first with with respect to with respect to under and purpose what they never do given those definitions and even if we accept them what they never do with those definitions is provide an explanation as to why a purpose to avoid legal consequences is a purpose under the act this isn't something that the defines this is the this is a purpose outside end of the act and the words mr richmond the petitioner was trying to avoid application of the act to him but that's not a purpose that the act that the act itself creates it may be a purpose to influence decision makers under the act it may be a purpose to evade the act but that's not a purpose that the act itself creates or or or governs the i mean not that i submit is is is the is benefit and that's that's and that's very that's seems to be made me what you're arguing here that this is not a benefit you wasn't he was why he was lying to obtain a benefit if he was lying he wasn't lying to obtain a benefit therefore it's not over he was he was lying to he was lying to evade the act and what i'm saying is that if you take among other things if you take this line to evade the application of the you're right with all that's that that's true and what i'm saying is and i think it's important here when we talk about chevron to to recognize the supreme court's decision and ask you will the government relies heavily upon the the court of appeals decision there from the eighth circuit which which was a chevron analysis that the supreme court unanimously reversed and did so by making a decisions with respect by using the the traditional tools of statutory construction and statutory models and asion to the statutes that that i just outlined with with respect to with respect to evasion and i think it's also why is it a benefit well the board of immigration appeals didn't its decision on the basis of benefit judge newman of course an administrative agency decision can need under generate can be defended only on the basis of the reasoning that the that the agency adopted the agency jude any reliance upon benefit as a as a basis all right well taking it as purpose then he was facing removal if he was not a citizen right that's correct so why wasn't his purpose to avoid removal but that may well be his subjective intent i don't necessarily disagree i don't disagree with that but i but i'm no logical the board of immigration appeals it has to be a purpose  under this chapter that's what it says yes and in the death and in the end in war or any other federal yes law right well there's a federal law that makes people removable under circumstances which covered him right yes that's certainly true so he said he also he said he was a citizen for the purpose under this law but let's missing the law doesn't create a purpose for its own evasion if if that statute had been drafted for any purpose to evade application of any federal or state law then i wouldn't have a leg to stand on but that's not that's not how congress congress chose the act to draft in fact with these models with it with the statutory models in the back room the other thing i think is is important i'm not saying that this the construction that we're here based on the plain language traditional rules of statutory construction doesn't render this provision an anomaly an example would be for example one purpose under the act is to get permanent residence for your spouse alien who falsely represents himself to be a united states citizen for the purpose of getting that immigrant preference forgetting that immigrant preference would clearly be subject to this provision which is also a ground of the portability so that  laws that exist out there independently of the of the immigration laws that confer benefits to people who say they are citizens there's a hole i mean you have the right to vote you have various other rights that exist because you can and should and the statute is forcing represent himself to be a citizen of the united states for any purpose or benefit under this chapter or any other federal or state law civil well if someone for example falsely represent himself to be a citizen to vote he would be within the purview of this act because it's a benefit it's a benefit and it's a benefit but if he if he if he makes a false we'll hear from the government good morning may it please the court catherine smith for the respondent the board identified three statutory components limited in scope by subjective and objective tests not argue that this interpretation is straightforward and it's reasonable thus entitle to chevron deference richmond's efforts to misconstrue or complicate the statute should be rejected the first component that there be a false claim to s citizenship is not challenge by richmond moving on to the second component purpose or benefit this is where the subjective test comes in the board said the immigration judge needs to find director circumstantial evidence that the false claim was made with the subjective intent of achieving a purpose or benefit the board went on to describe the difference between benefits and purposes benefits are things that are identified and enumerated in the statute so i would argue that richmond's example of obtaining an immigrant preference for a spouse is also another benefit the port said the purpose is this is where we get more ambiguous it's the other things in the act or or a federal or state law as judge walker pointed out and this can include the avoidance of negative legal consequences including removal proceedings third component that it be under the act or any other federal or state law creates an object of test the board so that a false claim must be made to achieve a purpose and this achieve a purpose this is the purpose is attributed to the person making the false claim not the statute or obtain a benefit that is governed by one of these laws and the objective test means that citizenship must actually effect or matter to the purpose or benefit being sought this is a legal relevancy test not a case by case factual issue of whether or not the person got away with the false claim and the court when it remained at this case for the board to create an authoritative interpretation and it led the board in this direction this court wrote avoiding or move all like avoiding taxes or the draft but unlike avoiding the dentist or the flu was certainly seem to be the kind of purpose  exists under state or federal law and when this court remained there was no question about ambiguity with the word under that seemed to be understood by the parties in the board didn't find ambiguity or problems with the word under it simply explained under means governed by one of these statutes so a false claim to citizenship made to evade the application of the law is done for the purpose of not being governed by the law and richmond argues that there are congress has type statutes and this isn't a specific evasion statute this is a much broader statute taking into consideration the severity of making false claims to u s citizenship for any purposes or benefits one of which might be  so it's a much broader statute than he would have this court understand richmond's interpretation and also encourage the proliferation of false claims to us citizenship because if successful there's no penalties if unsuccessful there no penalties other than criminal penalties that would eventually write this statute out of having any kind of meaning whatsoever just just just very briefly i think first of all the construction that we're urging here based upon the statutory models doesn't make a false claim to citizenship free pass so to speak there's your criminal penalty for that there's  fact that having defined purpose and having defined under the board of immigration appeals decision never explains why a purpose to avoid the act is a purpose under the act that purpose exist outside of the act and finally with respect if if it's in an area governed by the act isn't that if that's if that's what the what the board has said and would not cover but we're talking about it's not a purpose under the act to violate the act that's that that that's simply my point this purpose exists outside the act it's not it's not governed by the act it's the individuals purpose to within an definition of under which is which is governed by nevertheless there's no indeed there's no indication that that the purpose to evade the act is a purpose under the act finally just one point with respect to the unique facts of this case