six that does give this court jurisdiction to look at either constitutional claims or questions of law and on the notice to appear we were putting forward that  due process rights were violated because it didn't put the respondent on specific notice of what the person was being charged with and how they arrived at which crime was considered to be an aggravated code was violated but it doesn't say what section and then under five it says to action fourteen one of seven of the welfare and institutions code of california was violated but again it doesn't state what section and then have understood that but if it turns out that these are not aggravated felons that these that the respondent was not properly put on notice then the fact that they are two separate things and and sticking to the notice which is what i understand you arguing that if the first thing that happens is counsel says we waive doesn't that end the notice issue right there if you don't if you don't ask for a lab aeration at that point it depends what exactly is being waived if councils waiving formal reading of the allegations that's not waiving proper notice if the counsel is waiving service also that's not waiving proper notice in the n t itself it is i counsel say we don't know what the charge i believe it was the common leave well explanation of that i believe that there's a difference between explanation of the charges themselves and whether or not there if they comply with due process requirements under the fifth amendment and question is is there a climbing here if if someone's argument is i wasn't told what the charges were and the record doesn't suggest any uncertainty on the part of petitioner what the charges were and there's no record of any requests to specify the charges we have jurisdiction to hear the argument was not a very powerful argument because it doesn't suggest that in fact there was any deprivation of due process that doesn't suggest there was any confusion about what was being alleged so yeah we have jurisdiction to hear  the record suggests there really was a problem here in the record itself your honor and the underlying court everything was that was stated was concede it and what difference does this make well the difference as if the notice to a was issued to it didn't make proper guys as to what was being charged and so forth the fact it was conceded i don't think that overall harm no foul was the prejudiced where's the disadvantage how did it affect anything suppose it's true that there's an obligation to be more specific in the notice to appear and this wasn't a specific but if petitioner knows everything that needs to be known what effect does that have and what is there for us to act upon well if i'll take your example let's say for example that this was deficient that there wasn't proper notice given based upon what was given they may have conceded but let's say that everything that was supposed to be in here regarding the exact actions regarding the charge of her movability what section of aggravated felony laws it's charging maybe they wouldn't have conceded it maybe they would have thought at that time maybe doesn't win a case i understand you've got to have some got to have some demonstration that it had a real world impact iris prejudiced no harm no foul and so far there's not a glimmer of suggestion in the record that there was any harm here we have no declarations nothing's thing we have no idea what the charges were below we didn't we had no way of knowing when you've got as it is again that your speculation here now so that even if you're right no one up to this point has raised it so we're talking the sort of in the in the ether but here there's been no suggestion that that was a problem we had in the record up to now ok i'd like to just one point on this issue and then move on might my point would be if there was a due process violation just supposing if there was that the fact that someone concedes to the allegations in the notice to appear does not a race the fact that the due process violation may have occurred ok i'd like to move to whether or not the particular crimes themselves are aggravated felonies or not and we have two crimes or one in california penal code four eighty seven the other is one four one zero seven of the wolf are called and again it's somewhat unclear which crime they are referring to is the aggravated felony or whether they're claiming both are the aggravated felonies that sort of the same same issue here but under four eighty seven it's been held the forty seven c is not an aggravated felony because of the possibility of aiding and abetting and by the same token for eighty seven could have that same analysis and since it's not clear what section of forty seven is being charged we would put forth that they the government has not met its burden on showing that forty seven itself is an aggravated felony by the same token under one zero one four one zero seven of the welfare code if they are they're alleging that that is an aggravated felony seems to me that under fraud and so forth they would have to show that there's more than ten thousand dollars at issue here and under one four one zero seven one can be charged with that if any amount are not under the categorical approach cannot be considered aggravated felons because both of them include conduct which would not be under the one hundred one a forty three aggravated felony statutes based upon that we would go to the modified approach to see if there's something in the record that would indicate under the cases that have been put forward in this circuit whether or not they are  sections and what conduct and so forth to see if it falls under the aggravated felony statutes and basically there are two two items in the record which dress those issues one is the abstract of judgment and two is the complaint and turpitude right there was admitted and hasn't been the allegations we're going to correct her but if it turns out that they're not aggravate stop right there if they're admitted why is there still an issue the notice to appear what was admitted was what was specifically placed on the notice to appear that section forty seven was violated and that section one four one zero seven was violated it wasn't admitted specifically as to what section just that i mean the fact that someone you have any case lot of support that proposition you know ordinarily plead guilty that's that the government doesn't have to come back five years later and prove the case again if you can see to move ability is there any reason to expect that those remove  come back to life in the future and it was on both grounds i would argue that if the case gets up to the circuit court and that circuit court later determines that the particular crime is not an aggravated felony that the admission to those particular crimes would be vacated that's exactly against requirements of exhaustion if you have arguments you should post a reason to the agency if you don't raise into the agency the more senior guys or just question i think i don't believe again i think what the issue here is that the fact that this particular charge was conceded is being interpreted as that i that if it is later determined that it's an aggravated felony that nothing can be done to go back to rectify this particular case that same type of thing this is where you  those were considered and certain respects aggravated felons it was later determined that those weren't and then people could go back make motions to reopen based upon the fact that those particular laws no longer constituted aggravated f try to make a motion to reopen but we don't we don't accept motions to reopen we're not we're not in the business of finding out what arguments should have been made before and and weren't i was and if this court were to rule for example that these particular crimes are not aggravated felonies then the motion to reopen wouldn't be made here the motion to reopen would be made to the v a or the underlying court ok i'd like to move on to the deferral of removal basically the as the record states the immigration judge discounted it seems to me a large part of the evidence considering that possible targets are and rape and so forth and when looking at the record itself and looking at the conditions in cambodia there is a large amount it's full of abuses that go on there the torture the rape and the prison torture and so forth and it appears from the record that the judge did not the immigration judge did not take any of that into consideration and the nine the deferral of removal and i'd like to reserve the rest of my time f section over the only constitutional claim raised however because she did not raise her lack of notice issue regarding the admission of information or notice of appear before the immigration judge or the board because petitioner fails to raise any other constitutional claims or questions of law regarding the denial of her applications for upholding or mobile and protection of the under the torture convention this court should dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction c twelve fifty two d one just court's jurisdiction is limited only to those issues the alien has exhausted as of right before the agency here petitioner conceded both of the charges or movability and not challenge them before because it was not raised either before the immigration court or the or the board i don't know the dancing on the head of a pen but i have to say i've always had trouble with that for two reasons one is that it makes us look at the record below to find out if we ha jurisdiction ordinarily jurisdictions more of a threshold before you've looked at things issue but more importantly for this case the real id act phraseology makes a point of saying nothing and anything else in this section takes away serious diction so it was seen to trump the separate section which you cited that appears to make exhaustion a jurisdictional requirement so on the level of jurisdiction the way the statutes track our case law tracks and looks like well jurisdiction yes but then you immediately get to exactly the same question with regard to exhaustion and in terms of of remedy as the merits so i don't know whether winds up being called dismissed or denied they they all go to exactly the same conclusion but i think i'm not sure jurisdiction really does it because the real i d act crazy ology appears to trump everything out i understand your honor it's a very complicated issue i mean the way that the two forty two a three d is worded is it says nothing in subsection b or even assuming that obviously the court would address the due process issue it lacks marriage for several reasons first of all the department of homeland security did actually attempt a lodge an additional charge that did specify the subsection of the aggravated not state why the torture commission claim was denied but going back and looking at the briefs that were found in that case it makes it very clear that the applications reaganite in fact on their merits on the facts and had nothing to do with a criminal conviction so grounds in which she alleged a clear probability of future persecution or torture if she were to be deported or that she would stand out as repeated emigrants from the united states and would be subjected to imprisonment and possible torture and that she would be raped and sexually repatriation agreement between the united states of cambodia fails to support her claim this report indicates that the first two groups of a patriot cambodians faced a smooth of bit anxious transition although the third group of patriots experienced longer illegal detention and extortion for almost a month they were released after pressure from human rights organizations and the court said nothing to indicate that those who had been repatriated actually were tortured in confinement upon their return record in this case is not going to that conclusion but again i will definitely relay that doesn't compel the conclusion by a legal standard but the executive branch doesn't have to apply the same standard to itself it could it can it has