restrictions on the court of appeals regarding aliens convicted of a controlled substance however this court and the for the ins one seventy that third twelve thirty one twelve thirteen one thousand nine hundred nine and petitioner contends that his conviction for attempted under the influence of a controlled substance to wit t h c carve a silly cow said is not a deportable offense this has been the basis of the were that your client was convicted of the wrong thing but he was convicted of an attempt to put himself under the influence of a controlled substance something that  actually can see but you have a lot of trouble understanding where the argument goes well your honor specifically under the section that he was charged for the immigration to thirty seven p one of the immigration and nationality act that particular act says that a controlled substance must be defined and twenty one u s c eight twelve and in the section like acid is not included in any of those well it is a substance that is metabolize valves things that have been described are those things that are actually produced in terms of somebody making t h c and all of these other derivatives will then wasn't he convicted under the wrong that you know you're on a different problem no your honor under the statute in nevada when someone is convicted when someone has pled guilty to smoking marijuana because the substance that is found is t h c carcassonne like asset that is a test result as a result of that they are charged with specifically what is found inside the body and they are not charged with under the influence of marijuana although in layman's terms they would be convicted under the influence of marijuana so what has happened in the state of that it's more strictly defined in terms of substance found within the body and you argue that th h c different from marijuana correct your honor and that what is listed are manufactured products t h c all the other components that they have listed are are manufactured products but t h c carpet so like acid is the byproduct of what happens in the body when it metabolizes marijuana do we know where or how do we and that is that in the record somewhere yes your honor there was information that was presented originally to the immigration judge it was information that was downloaded from seemed a subpoena was denied was there and there was an offer proof your honor that was made with that that the as to what the district attorney would testify to and the district attorney had indicated to me that he would not appear without a subpoena all right and here was the purpose of his testimony unless you're saying that when we need charge someone with having used marijuana we charge  i don't think we have any other questions would you like to reserve the rest of your time or did you have other things you wish you'd say well in addition even if it is found that t h c conversely gossett is a controlled substance there is a further argument that t h c conversely gas that falls within the marijuana thirty gram exception so therefore that my client would not be removable under the charge under the act and that this would fall within the flotus body on a dicta of the court or it indicates that it would consider under the influence as also being  under the thirty grams exception for marijuana and i would contend that my client clearly falls within that that that belief that the court that it would be possible to consider under the influence there  violation of a controlled substance relating to a controlled substance so the only challenge here is as to whether that substance falls within the gin in this exception so fisher has waived any argument as to whether this conviction was related to a controlled boxer shorts apparently in a grocery store and went through a plate glass window had been using marijuana fairly consistently since he was a teenager and admitted to using it at least two weeks before the immigration judge was very hesitant to believe that he only smoked one that's consistent with his testimony to the smoke to join the marijuana right which the judge found self serving and did not the judge did not believe that he smoked one joint that was very clear from the judge's detailed discussion out of thirty grams of marijuana it would be as i think there is a little there maybe a little discussion as to how it would be a personal use if it was thirty grams thirty grams of t h c itself would be much more at the time did not bother to find t to attempted use of marijuana which is why they did it in this exception does not a fine case and again he did waive any argument as to whether this was in fact a controlled substance by admitting to the board on appeal that it was a conviction related to a controlled substance indicates that he would not be taking it for what it's worth you comment petitioner comes in approximately eighteen months later after pleading guilty after all this happened after being unable to get his conviction expunged by the state of nevada and he was given a know if you don't mind influence of a controlled substance and being in possession of  same thing in the government was i think they are not the same and attentive use it's not the same as possession in congress specifically made the exception for possession and that is that is not ambiguous on the face of it statutes and that is what the immigration judge also don't it doesn't strike you as odd that there is an exception for possession of up to thirty grams of marijuana for personal use but then if you use it you can be thrown out of the country other than for other than a single offense involving possession for one's own use of thirty grams or one's own use now does that mean you're going to use it for scrubbing the floor or does that mean you're going to invest it well it would most likely is completely different here having a small amount of marijuana on you is different than actually ingesting it especially at small amounts look at the consequences of what happened here where he actually ingested it he took office clothes in a supermarket  exception it is not traditionally manageable to measure the amount that somebody has used based on you have to look at various factors the time between the ingestion and the testing the type of testing body weight what your metabolism  to marijuana but i would like to point out of how the french charge under the influence of marijuana we would not even be in this court because the trial attorney would not have gone forward with any kind of removable offense they would have conceded that this would have gone under the thirty grams exceptions and you will see that with in the original arguments that were before a different judge and when that judge raised the issue of whether or not marijuana and t h c is a derivative of marijuana and whether or not this this particular individual would even be removable this was the issue that was initially put forward by the first immigration judge in this matter because had it been pled as marijuana there would be no charge and it's the same instance where the immigration has an offense and the charges for possession of marijuana and it does not indicate an amount them aggression is unable to go forward because they're not able to sustain their burden of proving that it is thirty grams or less so they do not go forward in those instances and that would be the same situation in this particular case so the whole issue of how much do we judge if the person has ingested is really a red herring if someone is found with being under the influence the amount that is discovered is miniscule the standards that they have finally come up with in the bad a post this decision are nanograms almost impossible  to even be considered within the thirty grams of marijuana the amount that you need to ingest in order to have that is have the influence can be a very small amount and thirty grams of marijuana you're talking about a lot of marijuana that can be smoked at one particular time and actually there been no testimony asked that but i think that those those are red herring and i believe that what the justice has indicated of it does not seem to be logical that you would have a thirty gra exception for personal use and that when you engage in personal use that you are now removable it just does not make sense and i believe this attorney has been misleading with respect  that it is actually designated synthetic in the battle that has been a representation that she has made but it's not been established well what it is not going to establish with regard to huge but your honor it has not been established with regard to this specific statute that my client has been charged and convicted of it specifically says under the influence of a controlled substance and the court come in just the marijuana and it just seems highly illogical that my client from using marijuana should now be removable when there is an equal amounts so i think he'll draw your argument to a close yes your honor your honor i believe that my client has not gone with and a controlled substance definition and even if he has fallen within the controlled substance definition for the charge that he falls within the thirty gram exception and this is from personal use