the way the statute is phrases for murder rape or sexual abuse of a minor the offense that issue used to be called statutory rape and now it is frequently categorized as sexual abuse  a minor but it appears under varilux zina that your argument is already foreclosed unless you can distinguish people over fourteen from people well so i don't understand the ok let me make it clear i'm thinking when you look at the state crime to decide whether the federal description is meant to fit it one way that it would appear to fit is that it's rape statutory rape rather than violent rape but rape nevertheless rather than consent being compelled by force  any conduct for purposes of sexual gratification with a young child is that definition the only distinction i can see from baron medina is that here the victim is one and was this done if we know the fourteen years ten months and counter was that done with the knowledge of the parents at twenty years eleven and a half months in your view that sexual abuse of minors lived in the meaning of the federal statute how can that possibly be the definition of sexual abuse of a minor is left to the discretion of the attorney general interpretations by the ins and the statute that it applies however as for the definition of aggravated felony i have not we have to look at the whole range of conduct that the statute would apply to and that would include seventeen year old girls now i look at very with gina it's just the use of young children for the gratification of sexual desires constitutes an abuse and i'm looking at that word young there and i'm thinking it must have some meaning and when i look at the facts a very latina the girl with a lot younger she was i think she was thirteen if i recall correctly that there's a huge difference between pre adolescent girls and adolescent girls and there's a difference between early adolescent girls and seventeen year old and it strikes me as a little careless to treat seventeen year olds samus thirteen year olds for purposes of categorizing them as young children so i'm thinking there has to be a  but the one side the deference and maybe maybe of answered the question as best you can i have trouble understanding in the ordinary meaning of the term sexual abuse of a minor how consensual oral sex between a california legislature has determined that a minor is incapable of the i and i understand we would not be here were there not where there's not illegal under california law my question is somewhat different and that is apply to conduct with a child under the age of fourteen years that's the statute why shouldn't we limit our latino so that's that's the one that it's holding applied to rather than extend it to different statute for sexual conduct with a person over the age of fourteen years he ca state statute is broader than the aggravated felony there's to say if we were to find that the conviction for under this california statute is broader than the category i great a felony of time counsel i would have a much easier time with your argument if this case had been litigated as a rape case traditionally females under eighteen used to rape but i'm having trouble calling a seventeen year old a young girl for purposes of sexual gratification using a child why how come it's not going to get it is a rape case he wasn't charged  doesn't mean statutory rape or means right but let me ask you the question that if you question we will answer and let me ask a different question if i may you heard your adversary describe the circumstances under which the i'm happy to take my help wherever i can get it not are you looking at the administrative record which is what i'm looking at conceivable in some circumstances that of sexual intercourse between a girl of fourteen years ten months and a boy or more than three years older would not that is within the federal category and that's the end of the story you know you know investigate exactly what the circumstances of the crime work yes that's true that's true yes i think i can't re