imprisonment can be one year or more and the second is that it has to be committed within five years of an admission twenty seven to me that's correct but my what i'm saying is that i don't believe this is an offense that falls within two thirty seven a two line for the simple reason that the element off with them five years of it mission is in that congress intended to make it a condition for people who have legally answered normally s l p ours now found to be also in france for other kinds of visa to hold them in a higher standard than a legal alien cool has fallen into that is correct because i believe and the code was very out that the court specifically said within five years of admission why would congress put that clause in their office and tens of to apply for people who are here illegally because admission is a work  crime involving moral turpitude for which she could have been sentenced for a year as described under eight u s c twelve twenty seven eight to the portability provision of this court's decision fernandez which the government recently twenty eight days those two decisions govern in these proceedings here those decisions stand for the proposition that it does not matter if an alien was conviction at issue here the welfare fraud conviction is certainly one that is under or described in twelve twenty seven eighty two it is a crime involving moral turpitude and it could be sentenced for a year and that is exactly what we have here and those two decisions absolutely govern in this case counsel counsel's argument that because she was ordered removed is  inadmissible that he she needs that's the eleven eighty two provision is the one that needs to be the statute of analysis here is just simply incorrect under those decisions and further support is found in the can dollar hernandez cases here because in those cases it was again another twelve twenty seven a two provision and it was for domestic violence that provision requires an admission as well the language there is says that if a person commits this domestic violence provision any time after admission same thing with the aggravated felony provision twelve twenty seven  convicted any time after is mission so both of those statutes which this court extensive case law shows it doesn't matter whether or not meaning was ever admitted in the first place both of those statutes eleven eighty two eighty two but also for a sense of pride that so i that's not exactly that's a little different problem because there's no sort of near provision for for  surprise the point is that congress that the requirement of admission is intended to whether or not somebody deportable not not to the actual description of the crime and you look to twelve twenty seventy two to just look at what what they're describing as a crime that makes somebody in eligible for cancellation of removal you don't look at whether or not they were method let alone when they committed the crime after being admitted in same thing with domestic violence same thing the aggravated felony provisions you don't look at whether the person was admitted and you don't and you don't look at to whether or not they committed a crime after they were admitted that temporal requirement in the statu convicted of a felony the plea agreement says it was a felony and she was granted probation and then sentenced to a certain period of time of course of two days or so but it but in any the only two ways that this felony because you assume for a while over statute you've always presumed that is a felony unless it has been converted the only two ways it can be converted is if a judgment has been entered that converts that well first of all i was granted so i don't know what we just don't know sure not sure that well first of all that issues ways before the court and we have a sufficient record but if you if you look at the record it's if you look at the timeline he's the one first he represented to the court that there were no convictions at issue that he filed his cancellation  and represented she doesn't fact have his convictions was the notice that they needed to overcome whether or not she's i was ineligible for cancellation of removal and that was still prior to her hearing she then shows up for a hearing that danged she submit she herself submit a conviction documents and this is what we have on the record one submitted by her with the probation and one submitted by homeland security this is all before hearing she shows up at her hearing and prepared to was because she was ordered removed is inadmissible she should have the petty offenses exceptions applied to her even now it's the twelve twenty seven the court of military provision that's being applied against her to render her an eligible for cancellation removal and this court then determines that that it would create an absurd result that just because she was ordered removed as inadmissible that she should be able to have the petty offense exception applied to her when somebody who would be ordered removed as deportable could not have that same benefit and that the instead that that situation is not that's the situation is but it has not been argued before the support but it's the same principle and so i under vasquez hernandez this court cannot apply the petty offenses exception to to cure the twelve twenty seven