the court has jurisdiction over the case because the action is not a crime involving moral turpitude so the only remaining issue is whether a non government trailer in a jungle constitutes a prison such that petitioner was confined to a prison when nicaraguan contras non governmental actors can find him in a trailer jungle under plain english dictionary definition a non governmental trailer jungle is not a prison neither the agency nor the government has cited to any authority other well how much deference the government is not arguing for seven difference and i think that's correct because this is not a statutory interpretation issue i would also point out to the court that the agency never engaged with the precise issue which is whether a trailer and should should reverse in and i urge the court that this is a question of law it is review de novo whether or not established facts fit a term a definition is a question of law that is review the brief he made the very argument that the trailer was not a prison the trailer was not a prison the trailer was not a prison he cells at any time a great building i'm sorry oh that was a concrete building a trailer right so i do think that it made a difference so i do think that there are two would that make a difference i don't think it was your honor ok because i fact a trailer is irrelevant well i think that it has to have two things one it has to be a building that's recognizable as a prison so if it was a concrete prison if you had a flash card a picture of it someone would say that's a prison that's one thing to have a building that looks like a prison that is a prison number two you need governmental authority and we have neither in this case we have a trailer and we have non governmental actors we have neither the indication of a priest here in this  case with respect to jurisdiction i urge is a tram and beat us or not ambiguous was your position i think it's very clear that it was not a prison now if there is ambiguity we argue that this is not a willful misrepresentation how can it be willful if this amount of ambiguity what does the word president pli into the question as asked about being a president what does that communicate with the question was very specific confined in a prison i understand that i find that what prison what does the word prison mean it means and the definition is that it's a building that means you did something bad what if if you ask somebody whether they've been imprisoned the question it's like saying that they did commit a crime well your honor if i could point out that you agree with that no i disagree with that i think that th committed a crime and he never was because he was held in a trailer by non governmental actors and that is not a prison and he considers where he so where do you go to find your definition of prison i quote  black's law dictionary i should point out the board never points out a definition of a prison that would encompass what happened here nor does the  government regarding jurisdiction i urge the court to make the specific finding that the government also now agrees with that florida theft is categorically not a crime involving moral turpitude that is extremely important there's been a lot of confusion around this issue and i urge the court to make that finding but if if i may close by saying that the court should remand this case to correct the clear legal error and also order mr o'farrell returned he has been deported  for two years now he was deported out from under a pending motion for a stay when the government asserted to the court that there was no timetable for his deportation urged the court to question it was a question to the person as have you ever been present your honor i suggest i'm not arguing with you i just suggested it means have you ever been incarcerated because you committed a crime aside and he wouldn't want to talk about the home aside because then the immigration officer would have followed it up into some other things i suppose well your honor it's important to keep in mind that two things first the phrase confined to a prison comes within the larger phrase arrested convicted or confined to a prison that grouping is clear that we're talking about a government authority someone being charged with the kind of then charged convicted confined in a prison completely outside of that is a non governmental group that is lawlessly it's also imprisoning someone yes you have a trial no there is no trial there was no charge there was no therefore your answer was he was never convicted of a crime never arrested never charged never convicted never confined in a prison come to your honor is this happening in honduras actually it happened in i believe it was in a jungle trailer in hunters which is where the rebels is outside of nicaragua which is which was the headquarters of the of the insurgent group so  extra territorial  that's right that there i believe it is unclear whether because they were also operating in the karada itself the rebel group i'm not sure whether this particular trail or the record may not say whether this particular trailer was in hunters in the jungle or in nicaragua in the jungle good morning your honors i mean please the court daniel smile on behalf of the united states attorney general during his immigration court testimony in his written pleadings the petitioner claimed repeatedly that after severing the hand of a dead sandinista prisoner the contra rebel group to which he was of which he was a member court martialled and put him in quote jail under the circumstances of that case in this case no reasonable fact finder would be compelled to conclude that did not authority your honor i'm not i'm not sure a lawful authority is necessary under the circumstances of the question that was asked of all furrow but i know that the united states government's actively trained in back the contras and that that alone lends a an were looking to the definition of prison in assuming you know i don't think it's necessary under an under the facts of this case assuming that that some type of authority is some type of lawful authority is required and the government does not believe it is only if you know it certainly our government question i think probably not it would probably would not be a willful misrepresentation at that point but here of course we're in a very different situation and testified that he wore a uniform he testified that he was fighting on behalf of an active military organization and one that the united states backed and the quite the answer to this question and as he's testified you in his facts was yes he said later he misunderstood the question when  asked whether or not he was confined in a prison but it does seem odd now he was trained by the united states as a part of the sand in these those the go down there and fight the contras yes and now the government is seeking to punish him for getting captured well your honor he was trained certainly it is part of the contras but even his testimony where are the conscious themselves court martial him because his activities were so far beyond the pale your honor i mean it's not clear in the court ma finding as to whether he shot that sandinista prisoner but it is absolutely and unequivocally clear from his testimony that he severed the hand so he could move more prisoners along let me pose a hypothetical to you let's assume m i was in liberty city and a street gang with its own code of conduct seizes him and it pains them and their headquarters against as well with that constitute imprisonment for the fighting and fighting the contras well you know the united states government is presumably in your hypothetical not not not back in that street gang your honor that's one answer and again if we have to take the question in context why why why why do these things happen that's correct your honor it's to late to elicit information to find out more about the person's background and to determine whether the united states wants to admit this per cent into it but residency status can be denied  immigration judge said that he misunderstood the question i i think he my my reading of the immigration judges this is it was not is that he may have misunderstood he certainly testified to that later but but  but in the end there's no question that the immigration judge upheld and found that he did make a material misrepresentation and in fact the board affirm that decision so it at the end of the day while while noting that that was all far as testimony he five quote i did jail time for that page for seven i did six months in jail for that again cage for a seventh the punishment was five months in jail it was more fifty to four fifty one i was confined in a quote trailer and they made it like  cell it continues in his written written pleadings ph fifty nine of the record quote they sent me back to indorse to face a disciplined military court they put me between thirty and sixty days inside an isolated military  because i cut a hand off a dead prisoners body your honour's all far understood that he had been confined to a prison and there is no reasonable fact finder would be compelled to conclude to the contrary  the notice of beer i believe that's correct your honor is the issue of law is is the meaning of the word prison is a not i respect i believe it's an issue of fact as to whether he made a mystery material misrepresentation on his and nobody don't we have to understand what he was asked that is or was was she confined to a prison cell does that case turn on what the word prison means  what the objective definition of that word is i don't think it's an objective test run and even if it were an objective test that the government still wins and here's why this is a form and on the form itself it says signature of the preparer if there were one they this is a form that's given to everybody you need not hire an attorney you need not you know it's meant to be is as the word is commonly understood in prison place where anywhere anybody keeps you is a it would be it would be akin to to restraining someone's freedom is that where you put it or does it need some lawful authority that puts the on that the change here we had the lawful authority your honor and if the answer in fact is well you know white be being a contrary even the united states backed this group when it was not a prison then by answering question yes you still admissible and there's no harm so to speak the purpose of this forum is to elicit information and to find out about the individual's background so immigration authorities can determine whether the person is admissible to the united states and whether the person as a matter of discretion ought to be awarded the privilege of lawful permanent residence in this country and to come in and testify repeatedly that i was confined in a jail while i was because i was court martialed by a group and then several times your honor and it's gotten lengthier have you provided a definition of prison anywhere i believe that jail is now included in it's more fulsome i apologize i don't have quite the  hundred eighty two the question under all foreign circumstances the answer to this question was yes i am still a little confused are we bound by the government's definition of what constitutes a prison or not the the term was not defined on the form and it need not be it was the understanding of what a prison was a lot of what happens if we disagree with the government's definition of what constitutes a prison then we would we would reverse the agenc only if the agency's definition is reasonable yes well if we are no we don't apply chevron deference but using that same analysis we should give some deference to the agency but if the agency's definition is not reasonable we don't have to defer to it we it and yes that's correct but a bit here of course it was reasonable it was confined again in a trailer he testified he would have been shot had he sought to leave and he was confined because of the atrocities that he committed against the sandinista so so even if one were to get to the legal definition of prison the government's interpretation here was reasonable but again your art is the government's position that this is a substantial evidence he did not commit a material misrepresentation he knew exactly what this was a again i need not go through the transcript and testimony again he repeatedly called it a jail he did so because he he w confined and indeed the immigration judge knows that he was even arrested by the conscious in for these reasons no reason factfinder would be compelled to conclude that he did not lie on that form if there are no further questions your honor is i will submit on the government's  so the immigration judge here specifically found and this is on page seven of my brief that mr far oh quote misunderstood question seventeen as he believed that being confined in a trailer in the jungle under some kind of military investigation was not a prison it's clear throughout the record that mr o'farrell was arguing even though he was sometimes using the word jail to describe the experience of being confined by the contras that  felt to him it's clear that he was pressing this distinction and the judge even accepted that he was pressing this was confuse that there's this distinction so even if i'm wrong that it's not clear that a contra trailer in the jungle is not a prison there is sufficient ambiguity and a factual finding by the immigration judge showing that there was no willful misrepresentation in this case he never said he was court martialed that's in totally incorrect mr of our own never said he was court martialed in fact when the immigration attorney asked did you ever have a proceeding like being in court now before the country that resulted in your being imprisoned i e a court martial he said no and he said multiple times to the court and to the immigration attorney that there was this confusion he was never imprisoned he was never in a prison he was only confined by the  contras i should also mention your honour's that at the time and in early one nine hundred eighty there was no terrorism bar and it is true that the form has now been revamped but the proper place to look for whether this was a material best misrepresentation is the ordinary meaning and we would use the tools that ordinarily the court would have to try to understand that meaning which which way do you go i think that it is a question of law that whether facts fit a definition is a standard question of law however i think that he prevails on both counts so if the film is would go to the facts prison will go to law i believe though if if this is a question of fact about what was in his mind when he answered that as i think many other people would if they were to be asked the same question subjectively the immigration judge recognize that he understood that question to be asking about a real prison not a fake trailer prison by non governmental authorities that was that's that was recognize