and we will move on to our final case for this morning which is herrera ramirez against train general session aiding and abetting liability to whether a crime is particularly serious i was rather surprised at that and i was not going to the seventh circuit i looked throughout the country and i did not find much and what i found was the and it states that even though dealing drugs is pretty much per se a particularly serious crime merely driving someone to a drug deal or gauging other things the speeding in abetting the transaction might perhaps house mere peripheral involvement and thus not make the alien guilty of a particular serious crime so to let me squarely put the jurisdictional question here wisconsin actually not unlike the u s code treats people who ate in a bed the same way they're all parties to a crime the person who directly commits a person intentionally aids and abets same thing you find in eighteen u s c section two and in in some situations such as the aggravated felony the law just establishes the character of the crime for purposes of immigration law but in others the board is invited to make its own overall assessment but that is a discretionary function and the government has argued whined that we don't have jurisdiction to overturn so i am looking for the legal issue in this case that i'm going to go quite that far i mean the board says that they think it's particularly serious she's driving a motor vehicle through city streets while people in the car shooting out the window  take her story she was you know she that sees people get in her car and she she she thinks i was the guy has a gun she thinks he's going to go out and rob someone i mean it's just scratch unary for the the board to say when somebody is a party to this particular crime under wisconsin law are we going to treat this is a particularly serious crime that looks like all the facts kind of determination it i to be a considered that you know in some states you know sit staring you know sexual sixteen it will even be a factor here the court did not even consider the fact the senshi received it she did and did not even consider  convulsion to do that on the board can look at a crime and it's probably going to be influenced by different factors for different crimes that it's going on so where is the rule of law that says they had to consider for example that she got a very light sentence that's i mean that's the standard i mean that's i mean it's a standard our methodology to the question that if they put forth it should consider these look that you know sometimes we just look at the owner's defense but the more the better way to do it is that you look at the sentence you look at all the surrounding circumstances  you know i guess i mean is this fair is it basically the lawyer i mean i think is the fact that this said the refusal to recognize the huge difference between directly committing being guilty of supposed to do i mean i've never shot out of a moving car but i'm sure that it's a lot easier to shoot out of a stationary car than one that's moving if she had stopped the car what would she have done she just made it easier score like i mean you have but you know shows that your old job over there is the tab a drug dealer and he goes over there that's a controlled by wisconsin's going to charge me with the delivery of controlled substance as are you a crime i i mean you know we have again we have the same thing in eighteen u s c section two which is about who is going to be charged as a principal and it includes aiders and abettors in a market county id check and and i would fish and i would fit in exactly the theoretical person in tunis who is up nearly a peripheral character let me ask let me ask one more time just what's the legal issue over which we might have jurisdiction i believe it's the complete failure to recognize the difference in part of a crime that the way that the part that the fact that a direct actor and anyone who aids and  onto what is basically a discretionary determination by the immigration i mean by the board in this case that the individuals driving through the continue to drive the streets while someone shoots out of the back of the cart is a particularly serious crime and even if this court were to say we're to accept your stiction the board didn't use its discretion either the petitioner here as the board found to drive through the streets by a leading i guess what wisconsin statute nine forty point two three a one as part of conduct you know as as in well she violated the statute and in doing so she did so by continuing to drive the car will someone shot out of it  there was perfectly free to weigh the factors in the case and determined that that was a particularly serious crime so the only legal issue i've been trying to figure out what the legal issue would be that would bring this under capital d i suppose you could say that it's possible to review the board's assessment to see if the crime she committed was per se not a particularly serious crime you know she failed to shovel her sidewalk on it's no wonder you know something like that didn't rake the leaves well and if the board thought one of those was a particularly serious crime you know we might have a real problem but as soon as we get to the point of saying well this is somewhere in the zone that the board might or might not then i think having gotten the preliminary legal issue off the table then it's up to the court to characterize the particular crime which is where there's it would be no further review that's correct your honor so if the board had said this was per se a particularly serious crime based upon the elements of the offense we would have a legal issue but the board legal elements bring this within the periphery of the peripheral of a particularly serious crime doesn't decide it let's go look at the facts and circumstances they did so they found a particularly serious crime as a matter of discretion and there is  court has no further questions the government writes but what do you recommend what do you recommend the driver do in such a situation  it is strata of the this court dismissed the argument of saying that a strike is simply asking it's always argument is that the that the b a incorrectly weigh the relevant factors my argument is that they didn't consider the relevant factors evidence whatsoever that she knew that these that there was a gun in the car and in fact the simple fact that there was constant surety found her not guilty of the wild armed enhancer indicates that the jury found that she didn't know that she had a gun  frankly not knowing that the person had a gun i'm not exactly sure why they found her guilty of anything but that's what the jury found i'm not going to quibble with them that's not my job that's not your job to be i a s under the circumstances that we have in this case though you know she didn't injure anyone she didn't act with order to sri guard for human life she didn't engage in any criminal reckless conduct she did something that i think any of us in that situation i don't know