petitioner i do want to acknowledge allison mitchell who is also a law student who's been helping in the preparation for a large amount she's with us at counsel table today along with mike de prince or former student i just want to thank respondents council for their own gracious willingness to allow her to agree to the student participation and very well thank you thank you draw for your work on the case and miss hole or hear from you again came a hole for the petitioner mr too many labor corps and your honors well there there are two statutory crimes at issue in this case unless the court desires otherwise you will focus on the minnesota regulatory statute section two  for this reason the court should reverse court of immigration appeals this court could also reverse at more than one level because of the particular characteristics of the minnesota statute this court could reverse even without overturning the board of immigration appeals decision in matter of towbar lobo which involved a separate california statute or in the alternative this court could reverse the board of immigration appeals because the reasoning in that split panel decision of the matter of towbar lobo with respect to the california statute and similar registration statutes is otherwise wrong and the circuit courts to have ruled on matter of towbar lobo have been correct to reject it the very text of the minnesota statute is on its face overbroad as to one of the two elements of a fed the federal definition of a crime involving moral turpitude the federal definition as outlined by the board of immigration appeals and as understood by this court involves two elements both amend a culpable mental state and an act of an act that is inherently vile base moral as the california statute did in matter of towbar lobo but it also encompasses individuals who are merely charged and even acquitted of those charges and those individuals are then still required to register under the statute as we see in this court's decision in gunderson so you're focusing on the reason why someone needs to register as opposed to the elements of registration requirement itself your honor we're focusing on both we're saying at a high level when you look at the individual who must register it is both individuals who are charged and convicted of some of the union right offenses that is one reason the statute is overbroad it is also over broad because of the technical bureaucratic element that a violation would create so an individual may violate the statute for example if they fail to register the color of the car that they regularly drive or if they fail to provide one of the many telephone numbers that he or she may have in your position this case does not present to us a c i m t is that what you're saying exactly your honor we still a crime in minnesota that just didn't have an here that would you argue we're arguing that for immigration purposes when you look at the separate civil proceedings that take place in immigration court that  crime not all crimes are morally turpitude unless the immigration and nationality act specifically says an individual is deportable if they have committed an individual who is a lawful permanent resident as is the case here is deportable only if they have committed to crimes involving moral turpitude not to crimes but crimes involving moral turpitude and so what this court is tasked with understanding is whether th has said that this conduct is malum and they conduct which is what we are contesting and what force circuit courts have found is not the case that is the heart of this issue your honour's we are saying that though and  circuit courts have actually agreed that the very conduct of registration statute and difficulty the minnesota statute which reaches perhaps even more broadly than all other registration statutes because of the technical and as i was saying there are very technical regulations that individuals must comply with in order to not violate the statute what some of the other courts worried though about the men's arabia in the state statutes that issue in those cases that a person can be convicted simply for forgetting to register you're not having without committing a knowing violation at the violation must occur but because of that an individual an individual had a defense of not understanding the technical violation in that case the individual knew that he had a duty to register but that he had seven days instead of twenty four hours within to within the period that heath had to register and so the individual understood his duty but it is again an example of how technical statute is and he was charged with a violation of this statute because he violated one of the very technical registration requirements and he agreed that minnesota has eliminated the forgetfulness culpability for forget and when you look at that separate element the acts that would actually violate this statute are not inherently inherently based or vile put putting aside that minnesota may have a a broader scope of people who may have to register putting that aside for purposes of this question immigrate the board seem to focus on the purpose behind the registration and that there are really strong  societal reasons why we have decided that we want certain folks to register everything from their car to their address to their employment why is that not a part of the analysis honour's when we look at who is required to register the board of immigration appeals in a matter of towbar lobo was looking at convicted offenders and i know you asked me to put aside the fact that individual right putting aside that the minnesota carve out there yet when we look at other similar registration statutes all registration statutes have an underlying purpose of protecting the public or in the case of minnesota making the jobs of law enforcement easier which is the stated purpose and according to minnesota case law for the statute things like licensing statutes so it is a crime to fail to carry your minnesota driver's license agree single time you drive and the purpose of that statute is to make law enforcement officers jobs easier and to protect the public from unsafe individuals on the roads but driving without a license each and every time you drive is not  and the board of immigration appeals has time and time again said that registration statutes and regulatory statutes such as this one are not morally turpitude in a so in a in those cases has the or look behind the purpose for the registration statute like they did in this one and said well the reason we want that the license is sort of us a simple example but they look behind and say well this is why we want this type of person to register or and that's why it's an important statute they have not your honor and i would like to say five minutes for rebuttal but i would like to quickly answer your question as well they have not looked at that and indeed in matter of t statue and that is very different in kind from a violation of a registration statute so as the sister circuits have outlined those cases simply just do not compare to a violation of a registration statute with a purpose to assist law enforcement statute and the nd a conviction for th degree criminal sexual conduct now like petitioner i plan to focus primarily on the predator registration statute and then if and if subject of course of this panel's questions and then if time permits all tab just basic points on the criminal sexual conduct offense now on the predator registration statute i want to clarify the question for the court we have a published board decision in a matter of towbar lobo which has said that violating predator registration statutes is e or state law but obviously that comparison necessarily involves defining the scope of the definition of a cia empty now so the question the clear question and the only question for this court or the basic question for this court is the th so the rd circuit decision of course addressed this very same statute but just misread it completely and petitioner does not dispute that minnesota read excuse me the rd circuit in toto me address in minnesota statute misread it as encompassing  that's something that both the th and th circuits focused on very heavily in jetting matter of towbar lobel in finding that it did not dictate the outcome there because it is baseline definition is reprehensible conduct significance of these predator registration statutes in protecting children and other vulnerable populations from sex offender years who were particularly prone to recidivism the board ultimately concluded that some obligations are simply too important not to heed now the california statute at issue the matter toe or logo required a willful violation but one of the issues that distinguishes towbar liberal from here as well is that the california courts had construed willful to include even mere forgetfulness or forgetfulness so that again something the th and th circuits have focused on when distinguishing matter of towbar lobe or rejecting its reasoning that it did not include a sufficient culpable mental state to be turpitude and then the only the only circuit decision remaining is the th circuits decision in law mohammad which doesn't really offer that much additional analysis is sort of broadly oppose the rationales of the other decisions even though it had a statute in virginia in that case that did have a knowing violation but mohammed didn't interpret it didn't look to state interpretations of that knowing violation and didn't in that respect choose to focus on the men's wear carman or provide any analysis on that point one of the things that muhammad and that's the th circuit case again and the th and th circuit cases have focused on is the regulatory offense principle now very simply on th the general principle that that regulatory offenses are not considered c i mts is just that a general principle there are already exceptions to that principle duis for instance are considered regulatory offens they are usually not considered cia mts but in certain circumstances there will be such as for instance with the sufficient mens rea a requirement so if a dui includes knowledge of underlying illegality so dui with knowledge of driving on a suspended license that is considered a that is considered a c i m t here next perfect sense for the bird from board to distinguish between failing to register your vehicle or failing to structure a finance financial transaction a certain way phone offenses like failing to report yourself as a sexual predator and this is exactly why the general principle of regulatory offenses should not and does not dictate the outcome here there are different things but if you look at the purpose behind it and what you're trying to protect in society and we understand what that goal is for a registration but like this structuring of a financial transaction well we know what that's trying to protect as well but so and that is something that society wants to protect against what's the difference if it is there going to be anything else in other words like protection of children under a sex offender registry that will unusual that right behind us that we don't that that it's different than trying to protect against unlawful financial transactions sure that that may have some quite significant criminal activity behind sure but that this is different so it helped me understand sort of where this one falls if there is a continuum or if it's just a special case well again your honor and i don't mean to say to sort of preserve the board's deference but there may be future situations that come up i think what is unique about a predator registration statute is nobody disputes the sort of heinousness of the underlying conduct and the vulnerability of the populations who are targeted nobody also disputes and this might be maybe the most distinguishing feature is how prone those types of offenders are to recidivism so you have a uniquely bad offense the underlying offense uniquely heinous offense and then you have somebody who's particularly prone i'm combine those two factors together and then again in this case you don't just have that conduct and again the conduct is the photo register you also have the mens rea a requirement in minnesota of knowingly violating that statutory requirement that we're and we we talk about the recidivism and the vulnerable folks that we're trying to protect and i feel like we're kind of that's sort of all understood but it in another statute would we have to have kind of legislative purpose behind the statute to understand why that registration requirement is in place for example in minnesota i think they say it's to assist law enforcement but what you've argued is adding additional so the minnesota statutes purposes to assist law enforcement but that's not so bad as the stated purpose but that is not distinguishable from matter of towbar lobo the assisting law enforcement has both the assisting law enforcement purpose in terms of just generally keeping tabs on people on surveillance and being able to use them as investigate investigatory tools it also does serve the deterrent purpose i mean part of the reason for these meghan's laws is to allow police to while keeping surveillance on people in theory it is supposed to deter conduct when somebody knows that they're constantly under surveillance in their cars in their in their addresses are being registered so so that most of the public safety now to your point about what the board might need to look to in the future the legislative history will certainly be helpful it's not the only thing certainly i think you are looking for some indication that a type of reporting requirement or a licensing requirement has some type of particularly reprehensible conduct involved that violating that requirement would and again do you guys are already sort of events is that very same purpose and i don't know in the th circuit case in my mil a host campus when they addressed that or the board decision lopez made what they focused on for duis if there is legislative history at issue there but i think it does not only need to be legislative history but there can be and should be some other indication of why doing this particular thing that has been categorized as regulatory is bad enough to be a cia t i also say to you would you like to address the corps argument that the minnesota statute goes beyond convictions and encompasses registration for people who not properly exhausted we recognize we're talking about c m t definition this is a legal issue but we're also talking about whether that falls into the board's definition of cia mt so this is sort of the rakli within the board's expertise in this is something that should have been brought up to the board before and there's no question that it was not if we if we agreed with you on that though how to write an opinion when we say we're only deciding this on his of sion that the minnesota statute is narrower than what it really is i mean how how do you open so i don't think i'll get to this in a moment i don't think that the merits of that sort of the scope of the minnesota statute change the ball game here but as to your point about exhaustion i think if the if this panel finds it problematic enough then regardless of exhaustion it can be amended the board because it thinks that that's something the board is entitle to to weigh in on in the st instance notwithstanding the fact that it was not exhausted so if it if this panel finds that it's problematic i don't think that it arising out of the same set of circumstances requirement has been interpreted by minnesota law to include very narrowly to include and require the original charge for the sort of qualifying predatory offense wider net but i don't think it's a much wider net and minnesota has done this because they want people to not be able to benefit from favorable plea agreements and the plead their way out of registration requirements and this court is already back and eyes that interest this court has also said that this is a minimal burden here and that is recognize the state legislature's interest in in drawing their statute that way including those people who are just charged but not necessarily convicted one point i'd like to raise empowers parents and guardians in protecting the most vulnerable of our kind so than analysis does a very nice job of sort of connecting what you might find to be or what other courts have found to be deficient in matter of t to a statute like what we have before us here which requires without question and knowing violation of the statute now i haven't had much time to talk about that specific point about the minnesota interpretation of the knowledge requirement there's no question that under the tree pronounce it make you lack the minnesota supreme court decision it is knowledge at the time of the violation and it's not clear at all petitioner raises the point that until mchugh lack it was that the statute encompassed unknowing minnesota supreme court has issued in addition a decision now in the alarcon case which both responded and petitioner cited in our briefs to clarify exactly how strict that knowledge requirement in this decision just came out last month or two months ago we had cited it for the principle that somebody having left their hotel room who was required to register at left their hotel room and was convicted because they had not updated their primary residence because once you abandon your primary residence for twenty four hours under the statute you need to notify authorities this individual had as its primary residence hotel who left the hotel the credit card that he had me using apparently got rejected and the owner of the hotel put a bid on israel and i think put his stuff outside the room it was never entirely clear that the individual that he had abandoned the hotel because he had not come back in a sort of court of appeals a public conviction saying but the circumstantial evidence no question whether way that supreme court just overturned that and said even that is not good enough for a conviction so you need to have knowledge of the violation meaning both knowledge of the statute itself knowledge that your conduct fell short of that statutory required mens rea are under the colorado statute which is the same as the government just can conceded that it's here in minnesota therefore the concurrence actually shows how i general intent  intentional to malicious is the same and in caves it was limited to knowledge his concern was that it went all the way down to mere negligence in the decision itself they wrecked they assumed that knowledge was the mens r statute concurrence as it went down a negligence and and the decision actually showed that they assumes that knowledge was the appropriate element in that statute we would also dispute that the rd circuit case in matter of taught lower court and got it wrong are correct but it shows that individuals were initially convicted and so it shows that at the time of the totem a decision totem i had the rd circuit had a correct understanding of  here in minnesota as it was being applied in the state of minnesota which is why the supreme court needed to clarify the mens rea and michelob petitioner would also disagree with the government in terms of the individuals who are encompassed by the statute the government says that all individuals who are convicted under the statute have an underlying morally turpitude next conviction that is simply not true as we've proved in our reply brief there are individuals who may be charged with a predatory offense and then ultimately be convicted of an offense that is not a cia mt in our brief we show that to be minnesota simple assault which courts including this one have categorically shown are not crimes but also in terms of acting the statute is categorically overbroad and the government does not dispute that this court would have to create a circuit split in order to affirm the underlying decision and that the board of