just confess i have a hard time getting my head around that how can something be noble and at the same time be fairly deferential under several i don't think on the ship on the level of deference would some i element of fraud that's required they recognize that there's not i think what they failed to do was to identify the minimum conduct it's kind of unclear because they relied on matter of the maybe you got it wrong goodman give me a chance to look at this and and approach it with a better understanding of the statute why is that why is that wrong well we've been  wrong the government doesn't want to say the words they got it wrong but they say remand it send it back what we always back up and ask this really is the order you're seeking from this specific intent as opposed to general intent i mean the other circuits have taken some different approaches here and how how would you suggest we go about defining what that aggravating factor is in the context of however that federal immigration definition is the epitome the quintessential ambiguous term in the immigration code crime involving world turpitude is a unique term a buyer that's particularly subject to deference so  are shows that somebody at their door in a wheelchair not letting somebody end to their house can be convicted under fifty one i want right yes what that shows is that fraud is not just any obstruction at all peaceful demonstration nine hundred sixty style sit in it up at a lunch counter but that's a reprehensible act quite involving world trip if you have anything like that in those specific words i do want to point i a peaceful civil rights disobedience act then how can it be a crime involving moral turpitude that's the question you need to answer for us here to say where you go you really go to the fruit of the poor because this is such a tough one nobody but if you if you believe that any intentional interference with government function can amount that type of approach to intentionally interfering with government functions in a variety of ways and in and ways that you know and prepared the ability to carry out the laws to enforce the laws there is obviously something unacceptable about people standing in the way in that way it's a crime there's  here because there's a there's a hard question here they've got some expertise and you need to let them take a look at them but can you point to this statute that makes it touted the bailable that as a categorical matter it involves a understand this court's point that this is a broad statute but having guidance and understanding the conduct an intent even if this statute does not instantly fall under that the lack of guidance and that regard there's a lot going on with example the second circuit just recognize that misprision of a felony is different under the ninth circuit roberson's eleventh circuit law in terms of concealing a crime and you know when you're doing something like that that's also under the obstruction violence injury aspect of the fraud aspect and usually cases are falling under one of these as opposed to this general term of bass viol dupree because what does that mean that a lot less clear than we subsidiary definitions so in need of clarification that the board could could very well articulate better what are the limits and where does obstruction of justice what types of obstruction of justice were to not fall within this c i n t framework dealing with the statute involving obstruction or false statements related to obstruction from the cia in from our sister circuits has required an aggravating factor and aggravating factor involving it's not like other federal immigration offenses where you're matching up elements that way it's sort of like the two quality of the circumstances of the crime or the situation that you're looking at and you're saying does that sort of amount to something that we consider a poor and in society it it was interesting sequence of events which is what i wanted to get into is what i think sort of led to the inability to to to see what was going on here the written decision as they did april twenty fifth ok at the hearing arguments took place and i think what may have happened is that there was sort of this potential reliance on that you know it would sort of be easy to rely on it because it had been this written decision that was created but then the arguments came after it and if you look at it there was an amendment to the n c a a that was lodged with the crime involving moral turpitude in that came later and so what happened is you had some a valuation is made before the immigration judge was even address everything you know that they're going to evaluate it all and he won't risk losing his opportunity to show the other evidence cherry requirements of cancellation of removal you can allay that concern and simply direct the board to general is going to withdraw this from the we don't have the government saying it's going to take a different position did the last time this was before the p r i well i think it's the quote for now the government didn't really take a position before the government sort of tried to rubber stamp  without with again without grappling with what was really at stake because of the sequencing of the events here i think is what happened just i've never seen an immigration judge decision come out before the hearings are over and that's what happened here and so you have this really really really messed up so they should have another chance here under our position is that there were there were circumstances that you know kind of caused the situation of being a negro there or bstract but it provides how that's done and we're most concerned with of course the last phrase the catch trial which is by any other unlawful act