decision made a legal error with respect to its interpretation of washington state law concerning rape r c w ninety eight point forty four point zero seventy three would serve as you can go behind it is it is swerve it is and the idea was wrong with him trying to figure out whether or not he gauge in the course of my theme aggression judge did not go behind the conviction in this case in fact the facts that the immigration found the factual findings made by the immigration judge are consistent are fully consistent with the way that wash in washington state law defines rate does not require an equation of the vagina it includes sexual contact the immigration judge recognize that he called that inappropriate touching but that's clearly covered by washington state law another war the legal error that the board of immigration appeals made was that it thought it presumed or said in fact that exactly what you mean by second guessed but the court cannot the you can really if you can yes the exercise of discretion can be reviewed that's that's clear and it can be reviewed to see whether the board a discretionary denial of adjustment of status and when the judge exercise discretion she did so in a manner inconsistent with the governing board president and the court said yes there is jurisdiction to review that that there is  including including the particulars of the patient's criminal conduct we need to know that the nature and the circumstances what exactly happened when this offense occurred what are the facts surrounding the who what what is th conviction in itself or for daughter to change her story perhaps because she is the financial support of the person and that's why we don't really want to be reviewing the facts behind the conviction not not of the facts and that's not correct in all of these cases and it's serious offense more serious offense or less serious offense what were the nature and and circumstances surrounding this this is an incident what what and the case law in a federal court and for presidents are very clear  you do look at the underlying facts and circumstances of what happened to determine whether or not what type of person this is you do not look behind and say this person was innocent of the offense but you look you look at what happened in the offense you have t prado the course you paste which is i didn't or in our briefs matter of edwards they all say you have to look at look at the particular facts and circumstances that did not happen here the board of immigration appeals overturned immigration judges the board of immigration people says that the exercise of discretion would necessarily make wires consideration of all the facts and circumstances involved including the nature and the underlying circumstances  the conviction inconsistent with what the conviction covers then the board can reverse those factual determination is the board that in this case we think that was in legal error because what the immigration judge found is in fact  think is consistent with with the arguments here the court does have jurisdiction to review for constitutional errors and the errors of law and we submit this what the board did here is an error of law is it exercise discretion that made a decision inconsistent with the governing federal court precedents that that's how ramadan is is are is relevant and what about in randi on the jurisdiction to reopen yes it is true that relates to our argument that  that not in the decision not in that decision i think that was a may two thousand and five decision that decision was made by the b i that was made by the be a that it is that he way they did reweigh with the new facts no they did not not in that decision it was  second decision is flawed in the same way the original decision is there's no underlying factual basis for exercising that discretion you know that there are there are there are very significant and his characterization of what actually occurred and what the board was doing the the petition i did not come into court and sentenced and testify with regard to the circumstances of the crime and that was collaterally attack the conviction he came in and he and persons who testified on his behalf deny that he did any of the conduct that constitutes the crime and that was what the order was actually react i don't i has indicated that it's well aware that there are distinctions are many different ways in which the crime can be committed sexual intercourse could be penetration with an object no matter how slight or it could be sexual intercourse in the traditional sense that most people think of when they think of that term it doesn't matter at all for purposes of the conviction under the law of the state of washington you are an individual who ha touching somebody between their legs with underwear and pants on right i don't want but this we're talking about sexual contact includes any touching