justifying the award which i believe is that this visa fraud as committed by mr suit the pro involved a secret intent on his part or relationship and that that was his intent and motivation from the very beginning and the government in argues that the circumstances of this motivation or this intent make the visa fraud that was committed take to recover some of the wages that were paid to him improperly the problem with this argument this focus by the government is that there was no evidence in the record of any motivation or plan at the time that they were planning the visa fraud in executing the visa fraud to force a m into labor or to force him into a sexual relationship  in the indictment that mr smith to probe had this agenda or this motivation to bring ate him here for purposes of forced labor or forced sexual relationship there was no admission or stipulation restitution and a m's true status as a victim here and invited further briefing and litigation concerning that ultimately the defense came to the conclusion  consistent with his plea agreement that there was restitution that was owed but it was for the amounts of money that am had to reimburse mr for once he got here monies for his support in school that mr suit the pro had promised the united states and the immigration service that he would cover on behalf of  him and i believe that ultimately the defense of reid or stated that it would only restitution of something like five thousand two hundred dollars which was the amount of money that mr sued to probe recovered from  in the course of a m's employment at the restaurant so on then you would at least have waived the victim argument all right well i believe that that's not a lever of the victim argument there being an agreement to pay that small arm out if there's no victim the defense did agree that he was a victim but they did not agree upon a serial bunt which he was a victim or crime for which he was a victim the amount that was agreed upon represents an amount of money that is contrary to the law of egypt but what does that really matter to me i guess what i'm getting at is that the position and th dollars it because it did argue that the the a t m was not entitled to certain kinds of wages or certain kinds of losses because it was not a victim for purposes of those losses those the issue of whether he was a victim was raised and litigated and at the heart of the defense final our position with the guy with the court was the fact that the am was not a victim for all purposes that i am was the victim only for purposes of the priorities said to produce misstatements to the immigration people about his support the will his willingness to support on that issue do you agree with the government that these a fraud is a continuing offense i would say that archer suggests that the visa fraud was complete upon the submission of the employment in the u s could you address that even if even if this is a continuing fraud into the period son that him remained in the united states illegally am was still participating in the fraud at that point but he was not going to the authorities he was not seeking to return to guatemala knowing that is no longer any good he was continuing to participate in the fraud at that point i guess your honor i would say that from a legal perspective he was not a victim there might have been an agreement by predecessor counsel that he was entitle to five thousand dollars on a theory but you don't think that's a waiver of the legal issue is what you're saying right you're exactly right because he was still they were still contesting the nature of or the extent to which he was a victim of the crime could you just clarify one thing for was about five thousand dollars according to the defense counsel at trial and thank you we have three and a half minutes if you want to address likely if we assume that visa fraud is a crime against property either because it is or because that issues waived and if we assume that i am is a victim if you want to address whether their visa fraud caused proximately caused the property injury to situations in which the for for the victim is not himself a participant in the crime and did the district court used an argument that but for the visa fraud am would not be in this country to be in a position of being forced to make payments to suit the probe or gauge of sex but the real analysis is that but for am zone criminal conduct both in guatemala a lying to the immigration officials and in remaining in the united states after his visa was no longer supported  that he wouldn't have lost wages and he wouldn't have been so good to dun wanted sex while he was here because of the views of fraud but for the visa fraud it's also true that he would not have been subjected to those d things but for his own engagement in the  a fraud well before and that's kind of a reprisal in your argument that he's not a victim as i understand it that that would support the argument that he's not a victim as well yes are you care to save your time for a bottle of reserve the time that i have left your home all right you may as provence you know what i hear from you thank you your honor let's start with the parties are in agreement and agreement before the district court and i think that will very narrowly defined the arguments left before this court st in the plea agreement the parties agreed the defendant dead to pay restitution fact at least the government and the defendant agree that the mandatory victim restitution act applied to be the fraud rd that a s m is an identifiable victim for that a s m is a victim because he has suffered a physical injury or to order an amount of restitution that's consistent with the currys plea agreement and that's what the court did the defendant now is presenting a new argument before this court that the n b r a does not apply and that arafat is not a victim those were not presented to the district court those arguments are we there is nothing for this court to review in fact he agreed to that this is sort of under the law no and t that line of questioning he intentionally relinquished this right to challenge that issue restitution and judge challenge the whole i mean did he wave the whole amount though or did he only wa over him caused significant fear there was ample evidence in the record including the testimony of the victim that she found credible that the defendant made threats to the victim that she would tell immigration  or law enforcement and he use that in your total control to get the victim to work at his restaurant and also to engage in wanted and consented to sexual activity and as a result of that relevant to lost wages better prospect of the period of time that the victims counselor testify if you could only work per time as well as the counseling costs and medication so that would be the portion of restitution related to bodily injury and the property offense i think the court found that there was no attenuation the but for cause was direct and it's very important to note that yarrow made representations to the government in order to obtain the biggest those representations were that he would provide for the victims food housing school supplies transportation credible testimony of the victim and others were brought before word the piece of product self those representations made by the defendant to lure the victim to the united states both for work and for identifies a close connection between the piece of pride and the harboring in part the representations that the defendant made to the u s government to get the feed because their pride indicated that he would provide for the victim's housing and part of the allowance of them to use the frog scheme to continue was barbering the sheltering the concealing for law enforcement that the victim did by keeping him in the basement bedroom and in the basement of the restaurants so that was that allowed the beast of pride to be furthered so there certainly is a connection but i don't envy it by i think the question is why does one count as a crime against property and  representations were made to obtain the busa that's not how the parties approached this or what the district court found to be the case in fact a superseding indictment identifies and the defendant applied to be some fried period over two years which is relevant to the fact that he represented to the government that over the top period time in which the victims were in the united states he would pay for his schooling his transportation housing and other things so i'm looking at the view stuff crowd over a larger period of time the district court's findings relating to the wage last is appropriate if we merely look at what was promised at the inception of getting the visa a ledger was found upon executing a search warrant that that seem to identify costs that the defendant was was charging the victim for that were in contravention to representations he made to the united states government to get the visa in and of itself and we both know this is very distinct from archer where that was an opportunity to correct or two thousand and five kids can you dress up found that the totality of the defendant's actions where he exerted near total control over the victims i think this is different from the case your honor is referencing that that created fear  and the fear there is ample evidence and the record of the victim's concerned that the defendant would call immigration would call law enforcement could harm to stanley in the dominican republic education and other resources there was testimony that his passport was also held all of those things made it so he could not leave that situation and so that's part of the total culture of control by the defendant even those after the district court's order to show cause documents to five and to establish and the defendant agreed that the mandatory victim restitution act apply and i am is  an identifiable victim who has suffered a physical injury or pickier the last that the court has the statutory authority to order an amount of restitution as to count to be surprised that he did that again and his response to the government's brief was the was sexual abuse is that how you would define it there is a physical harm beyond the fact if you were subject to abuse a good question you're at i would agree that the record of most amply demonstrates the harm from the sexual abuse there was also testimony and as cited in the government's brief the victim sustained injury at work  from the sexual abuse his treating counsellor william curls and substantiated that the climate of fear caused bodily injury to the victim including a diagnosis of post traumatic stress disorder so there is evidence in their very well thank you for your argument as trask article here from your about well your honor i wanted to address the question of proximate cause with respect to the physical injury and also with respect to the property los cases folded up the the the injury the loss is proximately caused only when the injury is a result of the particular offense conduct so that the offense conduct situations and there was no evidence of that in fact the evidence is demonstrated from the victim's own testimony at the hearing that it was that he was not employed immediately that he was