mexican national has been in the united states for twenty years has never made it to the united states and he was working without authorization to use a false school security number number that that was in itself enough to find that he had it was not a matter where he committed a crime while the world trip to the government says that this is a crime of moral turpitude that disqualifies him from being remaining in the united states there right that that's what the government says so that the government argue that but the use of a false so scary number is a no itself and always will be forever never a crime involving moral turpitude and in your honor that there is the fact that it involves parity factors which this person using also scary number to obtain employment at the airport and then was given to secure areas which they felt to be a national security issue so you don't have a separate factor you have a our client was a construction worker doing construction work and he was not you know creating an issue of national security under if we apply a modified categorical approach to assessing the nature of this crime are we supposed to look to the the underlying crime and to the crime itself not the underlying conduct you know you can look at is it yes your honor you can look at the underlying crime itself which unlike crime itself is false use of a so security card however again i think that so would it be relevant whether he used it to obtain access to an airport or do you just look at the crime that he was charged if i did but i believe it is it is relevant determine if it comes all a moral turpitude is if it is use it for a pretty purposes such as you know gain access to scare the airport well if we look at the nebraska statute in question because that's really the statute that we want to look at right and so if you look at six away and you look the way that it existed at the time there are the four subdivisions right it's europe and three of them clearly involve an intent to deceive or to fraud right because that's what the statute says in it so if we if we if we assume you know for when you got assume that we're going to the modified categorical probes that statute right we have to assume that it's divisible right and then we look at the four parts three of them all say with intent to deceive or harm another which which subdivision do you think he was convicted under can you tell i can actually tell you about it because in that they don't they don't ever clarify the sealing county never clarify what they found is that basic that he was working without authorization and  they say in six a way that not having a license you know having having a job that requires life that i have a license is not you know a deception but of course exception if i'm a barber i don't have a barber's license but you know  cut your hair you know that i'm deceiving you and just like anybody who works the united states without authorization is a seating someone receiving someone so there's a section in almost every one of these these acts and so if you look at subsection c where it talks about without a license certificate or authorization required by law and that's to carry on a profession business or other occupation don't you need it was a social security a document or operation required by law to carry on a the immigration judge found that he was not convicted under subsection c but the i a e a said they couldn't tell but on appeal doesn't this court have to look at both of those decisions together they do your honor they do have to put the results i gather and again i less and this gentleman is on a minute ailing and so basically we're allowing the you know the v a to to rewrite the law and i don't believe it's going to deference because of the fact that that it is clear it's not an ambiguous language ok thank convicted of an offense that would disqualify him from cancellation of removal this is his burden to bear in the relief context here both parties agree that petitioner conceded to the charge of remove ability so that's not an issue both parties also agree that living in the united states back to mexico the level of wasn't at issue in this case if you look at the complaint itself it does say that the financial loss was between five hundred and fifteen hundred dollars but again that's not what is at issue here we need to find out which one of the four subsections up you're sure actually was convicted under because one did not carry the requisite intent and therefore if  was convicted under one of the other three which did carry the requisite intent then it he would have committed a c m t which is a disqualifying fence and he would be ineligible for cancellation of removal and that is his burden to bear and he has not met that burden here so the answer to the whole argument is essentially he has to establish that he falls within see the failure fall into c necessarily shows that he has not met the burden of proof and not having met the burden of proof you know it's not on the government to prove what the nature of the conviction was it's on the defendant to prove that the conviction was not a crime involving moral turpitude we can't tell therefore he's not eligible for  cancellation of removal that is correct place the petitioner in an impossible position of having to prove something that's not provable due to the very generalized nature of the charging documents and the conviction i wouldn't characterize it as something that is unprovable it is not argument that petitioner raised in this case that he cannot meet this burden because the documents do not exist or he is unable to attain them what we do have in this case are i'm just a few documents produced by the journal entry or an order the notice of hearing and the complaint it is unclear whether petitioner quit provide a plea colloquy the transcript of proceedings whether those would give some insight into which subsection was actually at issue in state court and that is also part of his burden to produce these documents come forward with this offense exception and it was established  twenty one c that stated that it only incorporates the offenses that are listed under the three relevant statutes eleven eighty two eighty two twelve twenty seven eight twenty seventy three but not the immigration consequences that are that he actually was eligible for cancellation of removal to even get to the question of whether and if an exception exist but there's a difference between excess excess of one year and one year in the kind of gets mixed up in the arguments here it seems to me  case is submitted for decision thank you very much for your presentation and they will only be third case for today