rendered by the board of immigration appeals deny his request for due for all the removal under the convention against torture jurisdiction in this matter is governed by i and immigration nationality act section two forty two  no your honor under corona such as which this court decided the circuit decided it stated that in order to find out if the person has been convicted of a crime of morning ok and what do we know about what he pled guilty to we know that he pled guilty to section four eighty seven point one i think we know more precisely don't we know that he pled guilty to count one yes your honor and the court has in this record a charging document that states what he was charged for however this same court has determined that charging documents alone are insufficient we need to look further we need to look at other evidence within the record what is that other evidence i think is the question the other evidence is facts and documentation that aids this court in determining what is the evidence in this case the records in this case is for those nineteen eighty six charged the record has court minutes eighty seven point one which is which is a grand theft and and it also talks about what his sentence was and this record begins an administrative record page fifteen generic definition because there is nothing in the record your honour's that gives any kind of indication that he personally either signed perhaps a transcript in the record there is no initials and even the judgment that's included in the record is an abstract it is the does not talk about the elements within what is needed for theft count one and was sentenced to two years why is that not a grant and why is that martha after fans with and i mean definition of aggravated felony there's a sense after the punishment is more than one year your honor is still inadequate and yet it provides a definition but as this court has determined a charging document long that gives a description of what the person has been convicted of or what the charge is insufficient it has to evidence understood the court made clear that it would not speculate or draw inferences that evidence to the record needs to survive the scrutiny of the court's modified categorical approach the record in this case fails to do so please the court my name is chris kobach representing the united states government official in this case is that a criminal career spanning three decades in the united states during which years when all this talk about amounts out of thousands upon thousands of dollars by misrepresenting himself to them as someone who can point right but if i may continue your honor you also have the judgment document and then press most importantly there is a transcript here and that is the transcript of the immigration courts hearings which may be found at pages three fifty five fifty three fifty eight  eighty five through two ninety two and six zero three six zero four those are the statements made under oath at the immigration hearing october twenty fourth two thousand where the petitioner describes in his own words how these scandals  fact i believe so you are if we look at the basic elements of the theft offense as this court finding chrono sanchez one adopting the seventh circuit notion of a generic theft offense there basically three one taking of property to without the owner's consent and three with a criminal intent to deprive the owner of the rights and benefits of ownership here the documents on the record clearly established all of the elements of the indictment and the judgment established certainly describes what was done in fairly complete terms i don't know point does he say i didn't intend to do this it was a mistake or we really meant to give them the money but somehow something happened and it got messed up in the mail you there's no no evidence whatsoever i just not for the courts reference that he also had two prior convictions it appears that they were very similar convictions one other one in california and one in utah i believe the total of more than three years for all of these convictions sanchez and indicated a number of ways in which it might be too broad one of which was that it included the taking of labor and that this wasn't within the sort of generic typical crime it also included question is more precise than that the court also gave a couple of examples of why this the statute is too broad aiding a aiding and abetting theft is covered in forty four that is this the crime yeah that's what i was going to get i think it's a very good question there are because if we found if we would it if this were to find that in every case you had to have something very precise where there  a statement of willfulness and breaking down each element of the crime then you would have many many aggravated felonies where the because the courts of whatever state they may not actually produce a document where they say yes it will from this now in this case we're fortunate in that i think it would just be a dangerous precedent to set because then you would have to you would forces that want clear i don't think it is no it's simply the the reason that we asked for all of the elements is because this court has said that in the  it's not on its face within a given a felony or affects the fence then we must look at the actual almas for which the the defendant was convicted and then that's what we're doing with respect to implant is the statute to broaden this to say surrounding the conviction which are contained in later testimony in the transcripts of the immigration proceedings and i would submit to this court that it should not use those transcripts to determine if in fact reading the girl was just reading from the immigration court proceedings transcripts not from the transcripts from the plea agreement that was or settlement yes from the criminal case writing it was not ok i don't think we have where the government can demonstrate to this court that by clear and convincing that is an abstract of judgment and plea agreement not sufficient evidence that he pled to those elements of the crime the crime of which he stands convicted th definition of a theft offense requires criminal intent yes yes but the statute which you have required criminal intent no it only describes theft but it needs to be looked in conjunction with the general defining