to deport mister on the theory that he committed a crime involving moral turpitude within five years of his admission to the united states to do so the government was prior to prove by clear and convincing evidence first that mr admitted to the united states no more than five years before the conduct underlying his conviction and second that abduction under the new code is indeed a crime involving moral turpitude the board of immigration appeals erred below in holding that the government  time the board held an entry into the united states with procedural regularity is an admission under the ins an individual enters with procedural regularity when he presents himself for inspection at a port of entry and is permitted to enter the united states in a non citizen was admitted they're not disputing this are they in other words the principle of what constitutes admission i don't think the government's challenge in r is that  not rely on the earlier referred to date of two thousand and one his mother came in even though to it related to him because there was substantial evidence that undermined any clear and convincing finding that he was still in peru from two thousand to two thousand and two and you realize the evidence you've presented in your brief so it's really a question of whether the government presented clear and convincing evidence government submitted clear and convincing evidence and not necessarily arguing that the government disputes on time or the fact that at that that standard would apply the issues rather that the i j a in making his factual findings vasquez's testimony and his story of how he came over in two thousand and two on an airplane with his godmother through an international airport at eight years old credible said in his opinion that he both determined that he couldn't show that he came in with procedural regularity or that you know the government met its burden just because he couldn't show the actual the so that he keeps on but that is a legally the board contrary to what you're saying the board did not require your client to produce his visa or other travel documents with which he allegedly entered the united states in two thousand through order to show that he entered with procedural regularity instead they say that the board concluded that his testimony the affidavits from the interested witnesses and the records medical and school records were insufficient to show that he entered the united states with procedural regularity  the height and burn in that rather than just showing when he came in he was also required to show this specific the so that he used in the travel documents that he used and the burden flipping is particularly clear when analyze in light of the fact that the i j a initially determined that the government had not met its burden the board remained and it seems to me the stronger argument you have is not creating an issue about whether there admissibility but that they did that the board's reliance on the two thousand entry is unsubstantiated it's not clear and convincing because he was still in peru on that time by pretty clear evidence i mean he was still in school he had the broken arm and of course they have the affidavits and then you have his own description of what happened and and he came to us when he went to school in virginia you have that pretty well documented and the fact that they relied on his proof school records so that the question is if the court the government is relying on two thousand  to me that's the challenge that's maybe not clear and convincing then the question is what when did he come in and there's no other evidence other than two thousand to me the secondary issue which the government then has to say that in two thousand and two he was not admitted absolutely right now because it would be his more than two thousand and two the government didn't present any evidence whether it was regular irregular that is correct that was the point i was getting to is that after the government or decision and suddenly determined that the government had met its burden and the i j a and the board's analysis don't really fully grapple with either the inconsistency between finding his stor two thousand and that he has his adjustment of status for him in two thousand and eight which has the date of two thousand as well so the board excepted the i g f findings but didn't address the determines that you know the government's date of admission argument was correct mysteries you ask is still is not removable because abduction under the regina code is not a crime involving moral turpitude a crime involving moral turpitude is one that's in and as this court has recently held a crime involving moral turpitude must contain some intent to defraud order and if it does not then it must contain some aggravating factor such as an example this court has given i definition of a crime involving moral turpitude and if you look at the reading statute it does not meet these requirements for example in united states versus city prosecution on terror the intent requirement under virginia law it is the intent to deprive someone of their liberty or to conceal them from someone who has legal custody you don't think that intent is a moral depravity no your honor because the intent is committing the violating the law we've held in and of itself is not satisfy a moral turpitude standard it has to offer violate some independent moral norms but if you sit there and design and intend to mile or two to a gas station away from the police car stopped there and let the passengers out and he was convicted under the virginia abduction statute because he did have the intent to deprive him the privacy passengers of their liberty as he drove away from their home to the gas station but he didn't have the intent to defraud or deceive them and he didn't have the intent to harm them or commit any violence against them he was simply afraid of the police officer and under the statute there certainly could be conduct that has been and will be prosecuted under the statute that would rise to the level of a crime involving moral turpitude either because of the intent or because of the conduct his bayley mistook the belief for a deputy sheriff and was convicted under the statute and then there are cases apparently were virginia has convicted non custodial parents of a abducting their children so those of those are mother drove to the grandparents of her children's house and took the children out of their house against the gram and she was found to have the intent to deprive the grandparents and  the father of rightful legal custody of her children but her intent was to have her children with her and her conduct was picking her children up and taking them away with her there was no fraud there was no deceit and there was certainly no violence against the children and yet she was convicted of abducting her children under the statute and similar you know statutes like object obstruction of justice under law that requires the use of force intimidation or deception to prevent someone crum performing a law enforcement activity with the intent to prevent that activity so to prevent apprehension prosecution conviction n a has said that it moral turpitude is conduct contrary to the accepted rules of morality and duties of between persons or to society in general so that's much different that put both of those definitions focus more on the moral nature of the conduct and not the depravity you're talking about or the force of the injury or whatever and i must say if we're going to overrule the  earlier this year in ramirez vs sessions the civically stated that a cia mt involves some element of fraud or deceit and if it does not there must be some additional aggravating element that shocks the public conscience such as violence that raises t five years of his admission to the united states we believe the board properly found that the petitioner committed the offense within five years of his adjustment of status which was the admission by which he was then in the united states the board probably found that charge with clear and convincing evidence they produced evidence that he had to be is the denials in the year two thousand as well as his two thousand and six adjustment application in which petitioner swore to things but let's go back to the two thousand and two miles that doesn't really prove anything other then he if he came in two thousand he would have come in illegally at that time while it shows your honor that he did have   and that he actually came in in two thousand and two and if that's so it seems to me that undermines your clear and convincing argument which there is doesn't provide any direct evidence that he came in in two thousand well your honor we have we do have his adjustment application in which he swears under penalty of perjury that he entered without inspection and the government in this case did not have to prove exactly what year he entered all that he they had to show was that he did not enter with procedurally regularity before his two thousand and eight adjustment of status and the government did so because even if you take everything he says is true he doesn't establish how he entered the united states  because we don't know just came in with the mother write him in the airport they went through customs or inspection whatever it was and just because he entered with this  identified godmother we don't know if he entered claiming to falsely claiming to be a u s citizen which would not count as a procedural regular in mentions on you you keep pushing the burden on him the burden is on you to show that when he came to the united states he claims he came with under the definition presented himself at a port of entry and was admitted and that's what he claims and he puts in evidence that was found credible now you have to prove by clear and convincing evidence this is phony that you come with no evidence that matter of fact all the corroborating evidence shows that his story holds true we respectfully disagree your honor because we did have evidence and that strong and the application is thirteen years old he's still a minor somebody is doing all this for him he's told to sign i guess and on the application but we know that the two thousand is and there are don't we don't know that for sure i mean he didn't any evidence that he came in in two thousand any besides his adjustment application that one statement which is signed is prepared by somebody else and of course he doesn't have all these dates with them well not in the record your honor it's credible that he broke his arm and ended up in hospital in peru was in august of two thousand one he presented records that he went to school during the period two thousand two thousand and two in peru and the school in virginia relied on those records to place him between the third and fourth grade in february two thousand and two when he entered the school yes and then he has the affidavits of three people who said he was in poor and then you have his own testimony that he was there and how he got there and how it related you have that you can't make clear and convincing evidence  entered two thousand well we don't have we're not trying to establish that he entered in two thousand and we're just trying to stablish a statement in the application that he was denied these as in two thousand and therefore he wasn't admitted well that statement w only just show that he previously applied for visas and those were denied such that if you had subsequently zero haven't anything right well if you had subsequently applied for visas and and they were granted we would obviously have records of that who said  these under your own doctrine you don't need a visa what you need is the present moment at a port of entry and admission through the normal process not deception and he presented that evidence but my point is this all of his affidavits are taking that's true it doesn't necessarily establish a procedurally regular admission that satisfied because he's trying to rebut the government's evidence that he entered without inspection you have t and the burden you relied on is that he came in two thousand because that's what he stated and we know that's not true that's that's the only thing we have we have a statement by you your evidence that he came in a statement by him your honor well i  but that's your evidence you're presenting correct he didn't come he came in he is admitted within five years and that that statement that you're relying on is demonstrably untrue because it relies on his admission in two thousand while your honor it's also not just the date of his admission but he also applies he also states several times in that application that he entered without inspection  correct your honor but we have we have the burden of showing he did not have a commission prior to i guess of the two thousand and seven and this case also petitioner could have provided his mother to testify who might be able to provide more information i'm sorry the when there she didn't fly with him she met him at the airport but the but she could have identified this guy mother that he claimed did travel with her that he never provided even her name or any other information about this individual although she was not although the mother was not the airport as anybody doubted this evidence he testified how he went through an airport this woman brought  through the inspection center has anybody question that has anybody question he traveled in two thousand and two that he of a went through that flew on an airplane went through the admission that he entered school i mean all of this well th sufficient doubt so that you don't satisfy the clear and convincing are i think you haven't satisfied any standard under proving that he was admitted that he entered without  well we i mean we obviously have his adjustment of status records which shows that he adjusted status in twenty two thousand and eight so that would be an admission and then we sit right while we have no other evidence that he entered via an airport no no evidence produced i'm sorry no evidence produced in the court and the process of normal government records and the board and i j in this case was supposed to have a hearing to have all well your honor we don't agree that it could be a purse a procedural regular admission because we don't know how he entered the trooper well that was no that was petitioners burn to rebut the government's evidence that he entered as an immigration official airport and he went through a checkpoint where they have to flight that's that's what he testified yes so turning to the other issue in this case that in a standard i just read one that i thought was a little different but yes your honor while i'm quoting this is the standard that requires both reprehensible conduct and intent and an aggravating element such as deception or the use of force and in this case petitioners trying to argue that there's a realistic probability that for johnny applies the statute to conduct that is not  petitioner cites two cases two cases that we respectfully disagree do not show moral turpitude one is united states versus the d e v which was an unpublished decision of this court which was not even a conviction it was a  parole based on the finding right the district court the petitioner had conduct amounted to abduction under for ginia law this is not require the same level of proof as a conviction and also in that case the court found that the defendant committed abduction when he failed to stop  car to allow his passengers out so he kept them in his car by force or intimidation as they could not leave without the risk of safety and in that we would argue that that does satisfy the definition of moral tur commonwealth we had a a mother who had no parental rights and she did not have a reasonable belief that the kid that her children belong to her as that's what the jury found and she forced her way into the grandparents home and forcefully removed the children so we do not believe that also we believe that also shows moral turpitude and the court in that case specifically noted that if she did have a legal justification or excuse she would not have been committed i'm sorry would not have been convicted to inspection i guess the question is does that standing alone with no other evidence meet the burden it is not your honor standing alone the government hasn't visa several days before she came and then she came in with out of these that because she came and there were a border and was permitted to enter she was admitted on that date isn't that up haitian treated as an admission another words when you