it please the court kevin and yourself for the petitioner miscreate yes a barely eighteen year old man having a consensual sexual encounter with an almost a sixteen year old person is not sexual abuse of a minor as the government has decided in this case and not for immigration purposes or otherwise and thankfully now we have the decision of time to ask you to empower the court let the court to take a closer look and restrict the government from arbitrarily applying their definition of what is sexual abuse of a minor and for guidance in determining the definition of sexual abuse of a minor as an aggravated felony for immigration purposes justice thomas conducts an analysis is for you it says that sexual abuse of the minors limited to convictions in which the victim is under the age of sixteen isn't it agreed that the victim here was under the age of sixteen yes and so not clear it's not defined by the i ne and so since it's arbitrary and it can have a disparate and disparate fauresmith then they want to find and start out with and they give us guidance on establishing what is the definition and so what that core of what the supreme court does is they look at the dictionary definitions and they ask us now to go back to the time of ira ira when the sexual abuse minor was added to the aggravated felony definition and i can ask a question and ask you will only address them minor point you know what is the age of consent and inexpressive left open this question about an age differential and in our circuit circuit as how that sexual abuse of a minor is ambiguous and that chevron deference applies and it can no longer apply to this question of who is a minor but doesn't present in the circuit for close us from revisiting this question or even asking this question about age differential no in fact our argument is that  doesn't call for chevron deference and it actually invites a court even though justice thomas says we will not make a decision on any other factors beyond age of sixteen being the age of consent at the time now the court can consider that there are other factors that would make this crime not an aggravated felony and so specifically i want to address what is the age differential research on all the states and found that there is an age differential at the time of the ira ira that is significant and is not contemplated when applying whether sexual abuse of a invites this court to allow us to consider that yes in fact sex abuse of a minor is not just a barely eighteen year old having a romantic relationship with is being removed on the basis of a crime where now after since his conviction there's been an amendment which provides for a four year differential in age that is a defense that decriminalizes his act and if you have an act that's been decriminalized by a state legislature how could that be considered an aggravated felony on par with and this is what justice thomas gives us is in his analysis considering the definition and the context of what is an aggravated felony he says that if you have rape murder and sexual abuse of a minor then you can infer that it's particularly of what is sexual abuse of the minor in context analyzing the state laws and understanding the for you differential is important and if you look at definition which this court did not do in its present but just justice thomas did in the actual federal crime of sexual abuse of a minor there is a defense for a four year differential and now indiana has that our client could not avail of that at the time and good morning on a maid please the court and goldman on behalf of the attorney general the government asks this court to uphold the agency decision and deny the petition for view ditches properly charged and found mr craig diaz removal as an aggravated felony his conviction for attempted sexual misconduct with a minor under indiana law constitutes sexual abuse for minor that finding by the agency is consistent both with this court's precedent particular this court's decision guys cough and the supreme court's recent decision you  and there's no indication from the supreme court and ask a bill that we are somehow rolling back the protections for minors again this court we urge this court to uphold the agency decision because the agencies conclusion here  consistent both with the precedent this court and with the supreme court's decision in ask about i do want to briefly want to address a couple points made by mr craig is counsel to characterize this situation as and i hope i heard him right a romantic relationship between someone who was just over eighteen and almost sixteen year old i would respectfully disagree with that number one the victim in this case was fourteen and that's reflected in page thirty six of the record i will not quibbling too much but i think there is a difference between someone who's a victim who of sexual abuse of a minor so when i was fourteen and someone who is almost sixteen second with regard to whether there was some form of romantic relationship mr brady has submitted to the court several documents with his brief they are not part of the administrative records so the government's position is that this court is limited to record review can't consider them but if this court were to look at those documents has at his sentencing hearing at his criminal sentencing hearing is asked by the sentencing judge we're are you dating this young woman did you have a relationship and the answer is no and then it's in the record which is before this court the priscilla was sneaking out of the house her parents didn't know where she was on the night that they were ultimately caught in the car behind the school so i would respectfully disagree with characterizing what happened here as a romantic relationship that the point of it also bears on the argument from mr craig dia's that if his conduct were to occur today there has been a change in the indiana law that he could somehow take advantage of take advantage of the affirmative defense of having an ongoing relationship for all the reasons i just discussed i think it's at best an open question certainly the record i don't think fully supports his suggestion that he could take advantage of that subject to the court's question your honor the government asked this court to uphold the agency decision the related statute from indiana was an aggravated felony that was where there was not also a defense of the for your differential that i'm referring to i think the differentiation french was really critical and the courts allowed to consider that  i agree justice easterbrook i agree that this is definitely the holding in s q l kind of that sixteen is the age of consent at the time well so is what's relevant here is that in the statue in particular that they're charging for an aggravated felony it is allowing that type of crime as a minimum type of crime to be punishable and the holding in this court its president was to a different before for this court be kissing so if you're if you're barely eighteen and you're a sixteen year old that well you're almost sixteen year old and you're kissing you're both you know in the same high school government argument that