he has twice gone to prison for aggravated felony convictions the issue in this case is whether he has served more than five years for those aggravated felony convictions so as t from even applying for discretionary relief before the immigration judge there are two separate ways in which we believe the court could find that the immigration judge whose decision is being reviewed here erred in fi conviction cannot be counted because the sustain a conviction before there was even a bar in place at all to any twelve to twelve c relief but i'd like to start with the nine hundred eighty two convictions because we do believe the  at was one possible sentence for drug offenses was it the five years to have the past the max or was it ten years because you could have five years for the drug offense and you could have another five years tacked on for having a prior court your honor when into that decision was ok when we look at where there was a serious drug offense a serious drug offense is defined as a drug offense with a possible sentence of ten years so the stall inquiry was was there a possible sentence of ten years how far that helps the petitioner's argument because i think the point of that argument is that in one thousand nine hundred eighty eight when the alien like guilty to the the drug crimes because the relief was available to ellie availability of twelve the really in connection with this criminal trial because they didn't even know that at some future point to call he really would be limited and that aggravated felons who had served five years or more would not be eligible for not sure how that helps his argument moving on to the second argument that the sentence enhanced imposing connection with this one nine hundred ninety two convictions cannot be used for purposes of calculating whether or not the alien ruth and judge bronson more recent opinion there the question was in corona such as for example whether the aliens prior conviction for petty theft qualified is an aggravated felony for federal  and specifically whether the crime was one from which a sentence of one year may be imposed in the court was bound to apply the categorical categorical approach which was set forth by the supreme court in taylor and said that when applying the categoric approach you can only look at the crime for which the sentence is imposed and you can look at risk statutes but that's not the approach that's required in this case there's no case which will calculating whether or not an alien who's been and wasn't served in connection with the aggravated felony offenses what would that serve for you can't look at it in a vacuum and finally i think there's there's a rational policy explanation for the difference between find the category of frozen corona sanchez and the kind of approach the court should use in this case in corona stacia's the question was whether or not the alien had been convicted of an aggravated felony that had serious significant consequences for the alien in terms of the sentence he would be subjected to here and i think the concern as pointed out in corona sanchez is that you don't want to subject somebody to the penalties associated with ing and i get a felony unless there are serious crimes and so you look at the crime itself not whether or not the killing of a convicted of minor crimes but then when you add up sentencing hance fence the in california criminal law just support that you know another interpretation would be that in the middle of the government hasn't helped the court much on this question either but another interpretation would be  first time in connection with the drug offenses and then the time for a handsome and if you interpret it that way he still has enough time guilt and one potential remedy is what of course the government's primary argument is that regardless of how the math adds  time served in connection with the sentence and hansen is time served for a negative felony so you don't have to reach that argument if the court for for whatever reason just feels for the government conceivably you could consideration of a question about whether pro pro rated amount of time is appropriate or not i would ask i understand it firmly in my mind right now the factual i was trying to do that you know the question in ruth was whether the alien a bit convicted of a crime for which is spent in one year or longer may be imposed so it's the same inquiry although it's not whether or not the alien was convicted of an aggravated felony it's sentence that can be imposed where the crime if the amount of time that was served for the crime and i think those are an eclipse analytically to think and to say that the three year sentence that was imposed for committing multiple aggravated felony convictions wasn't time served for those aggravated felony conviction defies common sense and this is somebody who commit aggravated felony offenses that's not disputed so we don't have a question of whether or not it's an obviously knows the same categorical approach was applied and turning whether or not this was a crime for which a sentence of five years or ten years can be imposed so again it's whether or not a certain sentence can be imposed for the crime more than a year could be sentenced because there you have to apply you know called sixty six to that and then add those two together and that's what the government is arguing here the government is arguing here that what he got for his aggravated felony convictions was two point eight years on the two end of a felony conviction total plus three years and that can't be because what did occur in this case is you got two years and hundred one congress amended the statute and said that you have to have the five year sentence for the aggravated felony convictions that makes all the difference in the ru served has to be for such aggravated felony convictions there's only two aggravated felony convictions here he got two years on one he got eight months on the other the three years was not for that aggravated felony conviction and we do believe