rather there must be both reprehensible conduct and morally culpable and and present under all permutations of the statute to render an ordinary criminal conviction into one valving moral turpitude and thereby soccer field after dark which are both predicate criminal acts and compas by this statute simply do not meet this high threshold of evil or to create conduct in addition the underlying predicate criminal acts for which mr rodriguez morally reprehensible contact people especially young people joining us for many reasons including the victimization by other gang members or for particular circumstances within their own communities and  previously noted to trust software that's your question i'm just trying to get a handle on how much of your argument turns on this particular virginia statute if we just assume for a moment hypothetically that the government is right and th under the virginia statute in association with does require a conscious motive to advance the gang's interests would that change your argument or would you still the same would you still have an argument that ok value have to be trying to advance the gains interests but that's still not enough to make something a crime involving all turpitude i believe that's still not enough to make something a crime involving moral turpitude for the reasons i noted previously and that membership and i can't turn on a number of actors and therefore understand a lot don't think the virginia law does that i just am trying to figure out it seems to me there are two arguments floating around the case law in this area and one has to do with whether these gang and hansen and statutes are limited to gang related activity or not and then another there's another position out there that says even if they do only cover gang related activity that's still not enough to make something like trespassing out to members of the gang who want the soccer field in the crossing the soccer field on their way to a gang meeting criminality and moral turpitude involves a much higher threshold of conduct and the be here and it's decision well i almost exclusively on sources that explain why the virginia legislature chose to criminalize certain involve you know violent gang activity yes your honor and is there any is there any reason to think that the virginia courts what sort of apply the statute outside of that  questions no i don't think we have any thank you very much in putting before the court but we would argue the one that puts the things before the court right well we would i want to stay with the agency rule so no we would argue that decision it doesn't have the right but anything before the court because he hasn't it can i would you don't have additional things to put before the and has exhausted all of that ministry to remedy but so far he has not brought his issue to the be a st that's why we care about exhaustion so that the agency will have a chance to review the issue before we do the agency with its expertise and to protect its own jurisdiction gets to pass on it st and a did it passed on the issue of whether the offense qualifies as the only thing he's asking us to pass on at why i don't know if that is exactly true before this court there is assistance claim again i just think that any event and petitioners recognize that the caution of this case is such that the court needs to assume certain things about what happened and the record created doesn't clearly show that everything that the agency said about remove ability and even everything that the agency said about as long as the immigration judge's decision and or i'm sorry is hearing a notice on a real man so that the hearing would be to address the contested charge and footnote three of the board's decision but no three of the board's decision discusses the two elements of his trying to remove ability that are not that there is no conclusive finding  category for purposes of immigration and that's the issue that were decided and that's what he's brought here and again things like to me if there's any other defect exhaustion in this is that you assume exhaustion and assuming exhaustion moving on to whether tissue is offense qualifies as cia and i'm sorry are you saying that even though you think there wasn't exhaustion you don't want schoolyard on his way to the grocery store and gives mother a loaf of bread now that's a defense under the virginia statute because you see gun member across the schoolyard you would agree that that's not a crime of moral of the fence which is one of the elements of the crime of moral turpitude comes from the gang leader element and it's gang related for three gang members to cross the schoolyard to get the bread for their mothers that's gang related activity because they're all going members and they know that they're all so you're agreeing that's that's covered by the virginia statute and that's a promise i sai wasn't considering the present have a festival where they're there in was to buy bread for their mother that's right inherent in that they all knew that they were crossing the schoolyard me that's all i do that's a crime of moral turpitude as a matter of law in and of itself yes and it's the gang related pondok that make a gang related element of the crime that makes the kind of cancel it in the board in this says the crimes committed by gang members who is dangerous to the public in general use for law enforcement not generally present when a crime is committed by someone with no gang affiliation as the crossing of the parking lot presents from start the soccer field presents these unique all of the elements but this actually needs to be looked at as a whole and this is actually requires not only that only yes that element is satisfied a predicate crime is committed but another important element and the element that makes committed at least two predicate offenses one of which is a crime of violence so gangs are defined as violent organizations when you look at the statute as a whole and you consider that you have a person committing a crime he additionally separate and apart from making a crime he is the gang member or a gang or just and and he is committing this crime in association with other gang members members of the organization who have that objective committing crimes fact transforms into virginia law and as interpreted by region the courts requires a conscious motivation right to promote the gang's criminal objectives and interests we argue that reprehensible element of the statute is accompan mental state and i said oh i'm so i just want to be sure i understand your argument if we just assume hypothetically i don't mean the virginia case on the same way you do and i don't think that that conscious i think you you right there because i thought this part was so interesting because and then the board says we should treat the three the same but in morris the virginia accords is the exact opposite these are three things are connected by an org and if you treat them the same you'd rendered at is they don't mean same thing i don't know that i would say that maher says they don't mean the same thing i can't that morris is saying that ok why don't you assume for purposes of answering the question that we have fairly interpretation discord by the maryland by the virginia court my time has expired manner you can answer the question i'm sorry so i just want to understand your question yes i do think that that would be correct that if maurice does explicitly say that he is not mean the same thing does you would agree with us that the region with the virginia court's interpretation of its own statute is what we look to right i would that i ok i think your time has  association or group the real or more persons well the formal or informal which has one of its primary objectives are to use the commission while there are more criminal activities which have an identifiable name or identifying act of violence so under the statute the defendant has to be in can that doesn't need to be the person who individually committed acts of i want to clarify that point for the record and the nd point is to just underscore this notion that the criminality of an a and and a moral turpitude of an offense are two distinct inquiries so simply repeating the reasons why the virginia legislature decided to criminalize gang related