second one actually slow down just clubs or the second charge count two which was dismissed on those who the government stated that he was eighteen years old and engaged in sexual intercourse that charge was specifically dismissed over eighteen years old and occasion other things that she was there and that was excluded and therefore we must assume that he is how will you know wage and you know played in the criminal courts if we quires that it would require that the defendant actually do something to affirmatively to defend himself i think i don't see any point where modified sexual contact with a minor legal sex acts performed against a minor by a parent guardian relative or acquaintance sites blackspot abuse is defined in relevant part as physical or mental maltreatment that's consistent with open source of treaty did not mention that part of then i guess i'm not sure what the conflict is with i dunno if it's physical or mental health treatment unless the court's willing to say that's the definition of the guy yeah if the courts willing to say that all sexual contact with a minor is abusive is physically or mental maltreatment then we don't there's nothing we can say but that's that's a contestable issue especially here where there is no age difference which was the case in free and so i'm not trying to stupid  i think it's to look at the elements of the statute what is the crime prohibited and i ask a quick question the room the context of the immigration service which is looking to enforce congressional intent on the like the third because i think that's a that's a very good point and i think i think the issue is that is that and especially in this case is that conflates the immigration process just just certain facts i think that would be the same as for example fea like the sprinkler said you can't refuse to give your name under kerry's i guess if it's going to be used as establishing an element of a crime of conviction under a categorical approach no it isn't what it is being used to do is to establish whether or not it meets their concept and what congress wanted them to the able to do is to decide whether or not the ins in the carrying out of its official duties could address people who had lived in an inappropriate sexual behavior if you win in this case what you're saying is that the b r c a test its own records the caption knows the guy's thirty three this isn't just a couple of teenagers gone over the edge and yet they can't exercise  discretion that congress intended them to do because they can't take into account what they know but we all know i think i think you know that's that's good i think i think whether a conviction is included in the category  because he's removable for having been convicted of a crime of certain elements that meets the general category i think the only thing the court can we look to and i think i think it's clear all the way from taylor to shepherd all the way through are those elements which necessarily  defense exists to prevent criminal prosecution of people who are not within this age range that the legislative things that i think part of the problem of sexual exploits do we need to go there in order to fit within the