now what respondents arguing that domestic battery should be equated with domestic violence and the two are very different the courts will not collapse distinction between force and violence well two have violence why do we have to why does why why is that part of the you know i mean if we go there where you're asking us to go we would be saying that violence is now a requirement of just cracked and i know i think that's going where no one's gone yet well i'm not going there because different types of crimes volume or turpitude crimes against persons crimes against property there's fraud cases theft cases and if we look at the cases that do deal with  crimes against persons i refer to the case for get it in greg get us specifically indicates infliction of barly harm is a factor and if we look at other cases like a matter of corn look at see whether or not there's evil intent based biled to craved activity and if you look at matter of choice the test is whether there's a vicious motive the corrupt mind now let's consider here that all we need is an offensive touching to have a violation and i could all straighten example for the court if for example if someone is married and studying to get their masters at the university and residing in a dorm brushes against somebody in fit to punish differently or separately their relationship in a home where there are children present where it's domestic recognizing that that you know that that's a different situation so why couldn't the relationship make that different than a simple battery as a group question and matter of trend focuses on that and of course the relationship is important because it relates a relationship of potential trust to dependency however to go to sleep you know you have to close your eyes at night when you live with someone and so that obviously trusting dependency are factors however a matter of actually said there had to be like a vicious motive in a corrupt mind and again we're talking about a simple battery but that the victims are specified differently and therefore there's a sentence and hands from it so that's what the california legislature has done is violation as to seventy three point five in which case i will concede that it is a crime why more turpitude and that is the crime of violence but there's a major distinction between the two and that's where the respondent has gone wrong in their argument is that  equate domestic battery which would i would consider two forty three e and domestic violence which is two seventy three point five therefore in this case the petitioner is seeking cancellation removal and so will be separated from his family or be forced to take his family out of the country in conclusion this court should distinguish the mess the battery from domestic violence and hold that section two forty three he is not it's the empty nor crime of violence under federal immigration law on remand the matter for adjudication for the cancellation removal claim the supreme court in california has found that a mere touching the least touching one could be guilty of batter and that would also be two forty three e offense if we have the specified victim's thank you very much relating to the two domestic battery convictions the three grounds upon which the immigration judge denied cancellation or one that because of the two cancellation application has to have been continuously physically present in the united states ten years prior to filing the application and once has a conviction or in conviction was for a crime that was based vile depraved and conduct unacceptable between two human beings so that's really what we're going to let's start with the question of do you have a well actually i do have a couple of cases in mine your honor that speak to this question one of them is a matter of who are allowed i don't know is that cited in  these briefs so let me give you the start really quickly it's twenty one i n a decision four seven five and a four out loud is a decision that had to do was assault so  related crime and it was a simple assault and the board held that that was not a crime involving moral turpitude however  board commented saying this is different from a crime where there would be a simple and it was paired with a special relationship in this case the board was referring to the special relationship or the special person which was a peace officer referring to a decision and matter of the nash and said it's in full hour or whatever that's ca but it would have been a crime involving moral turpitude for example against a peace officer so and so is this the first case where the words determine special relationship plus the battery is moral turpitude your honor i'm not sure if that's the first one but it is one ok plus we don't have a court opinion anyway we court still has a decision that it can review and so that's what's before the court today well i guess i think what judge burst on to saying though also is that we'd like to give the board the first opportunity to say so to speak on an issue and but when they pass then and then they complain that if we got it wrong well if they'd spoken first thing that would be helpful i understand your honor also on thank you yes that's correct and it's it but the question that you posed i believe is whether the court had ever addressed it and also you said whether the board has issued a decision precedential or non y in your next movie can tell us why what the difference is well your honor i don't even think the court needs to go that far in this case possibly when you're deciding all of them that issue would come up but in this case there was a battery and there is a domestic there is a domestic relationship and so it was reasonable for the for the immigration judge to much thank you very much