fold we stated that that the immigration judge erred in finding that the respondents convictions there were two convictions under our position that that is the error and we also put forth that the immigration judge incorrectly deny the responder an somewhat individualistically applied when we say that a state criminal conviction is sufficient to be elements here is not correct it's an element that you're quite ultimately concedes but that can be established through the public documents is that correct that is correct and sought to seventy three years out of the picture one of the consequences of him having forty or twenty two is a crime involving moral turpitude you know ok so what are the consequences of the government conceding that it cannot rely on the two seventy three point five conviction well  i think we have to look beyond the record of conviction itself to the particulars of that underlying convict we have to look at the at the particulars of the underlying conviction for twenty two i think that  exception is that where we're headed yes ok what's going to be how we get there and what your what your client has to demonstrate what the government have to respond to well at this point i ever only have five minutes  so i would like to reserve that for my bottle if that's not appropriate thank you you may do that i think it would be helpful to the court only sixty days and that the he could be convicted to no more than one year now and the conviction documents demonstrate that he was charged with a misdemeanor and this conviction under two seventy three point five i question is really about that the two seventy three point five conviction counts in proving that he committed to offenses that's because the statute uses two different words one refers to offenses one is whether you've been convicted in the other is what you've point five and while and this court and all of us mada determined that for the purposes of twelve twenty seven which requires an actual conviction and that so the tribunal is not good law however all of us mount up left open to an exception because it explicitly noted a distinction between the requirement of a conviction and the admits committing language that's contained in eleven eighty two we the government believes that a civil tribunal may still apply in the eleven eighty two contacts but we don't ask the court to resolve that nor is it necessary to resolve it in this case because the the only real question is whether he committed a second offense and we believe that his conviction combined with his clear admissions that that the offenses committed against his wife you're suggesting that that under the committed that the language of the statute suggests that that can be that's what were the circumstances of the admission so there's a number there's a number of things he admitted in the context of documents that he submitted to the board or to the immigration judge his immigration judge that h waiver doesn't apply which as a result there is no evidence of record substantiating has allegations or demonstrating that he meets the other requirements of two twelve he's been president of the country for more than seven years that's you have to have he has lawfully resided continuously in the united states for a period of not less than seven years the board examined this and i published decision matter of rotimi which held that awaiting education for an adjustment application did not confer a lawful residence the boy compare the requirements of two twelve age to that of the cancellation sasheer which requires that the alien has resided continuously for seven years after having been admitted  the status of the language of the cancellation section suggests that you may be admitted and fall out of status but maintain residence in the border does that to twelve age did not explicitly require status but found that the residence had to be in accordance bit of time it's all yours the two seventy three point five conviction and the other matter seems to be here the regarding of his admission and guarding mentions i think we have to understand first of all this is a person who is from mexico and speaks only spanish so when he his wife's relative and that person because of the nature of the relationship was not correctly translating and not giving him legal correct legal advice are whatever you want to talk about that because this person was telling him just just say you did it and they'll leave you alone because you bulk did it and you know they'll they'll just tell you don't go away  you know to cool off and go away in the end they won't do anything you know that's the way that the police are so his ignition and even his wife's letter was more towards a minor from what we would call incident more verbal then physical and  later came to me that you know he did not understand his immigration how his immigration rights would be affected he was just trying to get  through the situation and did not understand that that what this could do for his immigration status he was  t correctly represented i don't believe but even in the matter of the arrest was misinformed as to that the nature of what would happen and certainly not ever informed as to the nature of what this would be to his immigration status he had no idea that something so minor could affect something so the wife expresses in her letter how things happened i think that that we have to accept that as a as well as anything that he would say could still be an actual normal two seventy three point five and then the last thing i would say is that a lot of the time and the nihil of the two twelve point eight which is usually delays in the processing of the application and we would ask that you look at that factor also the actual factor