with respect to terrorist activity unrelated to the terrorist organization yes it's required so as you mentioned was the nd a major substantial change that happened here was each change that in order for an individual referenced in the st circuit decision so with respect to this nd change as to nexus to what extent was it made in the patriot act versus three like for your are it in the patriot act  sections from the from the i have a question on this point do you have any authority that says under the old statute that so listening funds for a terrorist organization to use for i think you have the examples of food and  medical supplies in your grief would not have counted as engaging in terrorist activity under the old statute under the old statute you are to not have a specific case but again terrorist activity meant to afford material support etc and then it's heading clude soliciting funds for any terrorist organization and i understand your theory to be that that did not include all soliciting funds for terrorist organizations because i think you're saying some soliciting of funds for a terrorist organization did not amount to material support the other the argument against that is that the statute specified soliciting funds for any terrorist organization was included and so i'm asking whether there's any authority that would help us see how it was actually when but if the if the agency was not applying the of off the way that so they state the th as broadly as what they say you should leave it as a matter of statutory interpretation and it that there was a definition of a foreign terrorist organization but we're also americans dispatcher referred to as quote any terrorist organization you know that's what the district court relied on and so the question is why couldn't the tears three organization under current law have been any terrorist organization under former law yes you are and looking at congress you mr wilson trials and tribulations that come along with it over the years the government and make in their statutory argument this essentially trying to shape the law their brief has many statements that are out right this troubling  moments there's a statement that the immigration judge for example in two thousand and one did not have the authority to actually determine what any terrorist organization was and that they were locked into what an f p o is under section eleven the th and that the problem is the law or immigration judge manuals or anything else that would tallis that it was apply we are now to three terrorist organizations and not only what were designated as foreign terrorist organizations so  scoured westlaw an attempt to try to find it when i saw statements that governments brief those looking to see if there was a can see support i couldn't find anything that can find any terrorist organization from being in the purview of the immigration judge i found one board case that touched upon this the older version of the statute as it related to exclude ability because that's what it would have been prior to a death but in iraq iraq and in relation to that they're talking about up at the not really struggling with any terrorist organisation act and then  the case the last sort of shifting by the case is still pending so the question gets lost in the porcelaine there is no resolution of it and so the unfortunate just a byproduct of how long this case has gone on in the age of the internet showed whether the statute change the scope of that one no and i don't know that there's been an independent as to what soliciting funds as mindy there i think that's been kind of given a standard definition not and the nexus so it may broaden the reach of the law in terms of where the money out money was used it didn't change though that you had to give the money to a qualifying organization and in this case especially in this record we're still in the narrow vein of giving money specifically to activity that's related to essentially warfare that's going on the library at the time and it's really literally right in the sense center of the lane from from the previous version of the definition the ending read the adjustment decision in the i j remember the jugular was ends up saying that your client had met the clear and convincing standard clearly convincing standard is actually an exception from the alien under the former law no no no that's because these are going exception when arguing that standard he's actually arguing that because the money was given in generally i couldn't control what the actor did and i had no way  just commonsense is the group that you saw as being persecuted by charles taylor and it responded as an eighteen year old want to do his part and so that was there was no escaping that the record develops that the government attorney was present court and the court receives an objection rather than ruling in the objection often the forecast exam question just to fill in the plant so when you have an active judge who's fill fulfilling its destiny duty and resolving questions as it relates to the standard of law for you having the ajman by all parties the governments are going about actually litigate it wants to ignore the context in which these cases occur they're compact hearings that happened with people who are very invested in the issues have prepared written documents in advance of it and often will talk before going on to identify the issues of the testimony gets to the heart of it right away and so in this case you have the law it's very clear at the time that if out whether they have been military leaders in the you can also be guilty by association of law and then to ask is typically about who did you raise money for he confirmed mr hoffa on it was aware of who the individual applicant the father neither so he is you know in in all candor i think ginger was actually decided correctly under the government's interpretation of the statute where you have this element you didn't mark but enrolling in contrast it was front and center that's front and center the government the judge commented on it in response to the government's inquiry it was that it was brought up and relation to what he was doing he was providing medicine in pharmaceuticals and he was doing it for a specific group it was a key or a cornerstone of the application from the very beginning and so those that they get these two cases where the quite contrast thing outcomes but the records themselves actually  necessarily wrong i just think that it's the record that's actually driving and all the collateral stoffel cases say that you have to look at the specific record to determine whether the issue the elements have been met and in this record it couldn't be any clearer the government's proposing a standard to impose an immigration law proceedings especially to move a proceedings where we're going to relegate it to statutory keywords but if we have to say the buzzword and we get it in the record somehow and order to be able to to know that there is finality of the issue even though everyone's talking about the very issue at large what i was hopeful is not that rigid it is a rule of equity to in many instances and so to have  require such perfections in the record is beyond what the doctor never required the question is did the parties have an opportunity to litigate the question was the question clearly on the air was an open and obvious to everyone unfortunately the law is retroactive and once the group goes that direction the person is unfortunately prejudiced by what that group does in the after they've already become the sightly so the last clear on that it's because  that point it's the any application for adjustment or residency that point also get prejudice and there's just no getting around it it's in it's in the fortune part of the law is that it's it's sweeping because you could have had valid conduct in relation the group that changed direction i think it was the question itself a group that changed direction that you would you would have you wouldn't be able to apply for the exceptions but generally the statute with the triggered and you in the person applying this to qualify two eating simpson's the knowledge element your honor the you have to have to then produce a clean convincing out of the burden of the hypothetical was that the organization was not a terrorist organization when you gave the money to that two reasons one your honor is that the activity underneath the in the claim itself was already established in the group was already known at the time in two thousand and one when the activity was going on this isn't a group that a rose after the