to matter of islam as are so i'm not sure how to really read that i mean they just sort of referenced i guess that you know another case i think that said that the states characterization is steal from people you walk into a store you steal from that's a crime what's wrong with that you want to if the board had said that mr quest feels decision there might be nothing wrong with it but what the problem is is that what the board in this case simply cited islamize are said well it's a beyond a reasonable doubt standard ignored all the other factors at issue in islam as are and and specifically contradicted the holding islamize are saying that the state's characterization offense was not relevant when it clearly was in the language of islam as are and this court has spoken very forcefully about the need for agencies to be consistent in their decisions and when agencies if we apply all the factors into it but if the court is concerned about the lack of kids as an agency it's certainly valid to let the board have i think under chevron sometimes to let the board a valu first under the proper standards which was a kind of well let me ask you about crime because when this court sent the case back before it was sufficiently because we wanted both sides to talk about what does it mean for a crime that was the purpose of and precious little was said by either side about that so what is your position about whether what happened here i mean you talked a lot about conviction and what caused the conviction and that's what as well as ours all about this conviction it's not about whether something's a crime convicted of what is the real issue that we were wrestling with before crime was kind of a unitary term and so given that the i n a doesn't do specifically define what a crime is we have to look at the case law which which the earlier case law tells us well a conviction for it would use just the phrase conviction of a crime because it was before the eye and they had defined a crime which i think was an in iraq and basically they use that sort of phrase as a whole and said basically  crime in matter of d a s as well and also some of the the intent of the statute and so we didn't get into the history of the i and they basically that was pretty much a unitary term want to start where we finished up with the cia or the position of united states seems to be if you're convicted it is a crime and there's no difference there's no such thing as being convicted of something one a forty a day which is the definition of conviction for purposes of immigration law in our brief rant but i'd like to know that i think the board does also address this issue and although it does seem the board really is resting on this beyond a reasonable doubt standard whether new jersey considers his offense to be a crime is not relevant right so far from addressing whether it's a crime or not but i think i think what the courts say and i think what i meant i was saying here is that that essentially there's there's what is a crime needs to be looked through first the lens of what is a convict conviction but then secondly there was one critical factor that was outlined a matter of islamists are and i notice here makes much of this argument that it's mozart discuss all of these factors but if  you have to adhere to its own decisions as to how these are are now under islamic art in order for a matter to be considered across the board itself has sent number one i'm off your maybe  the matter in which the state itself considers such factors  or police officer files a statement and it goes to a judge and the proceedings there is no indictment there's no there's no grand jury court does talk about how the state treats a crime as being significant and they supposedly talk about this label however of the label i think it's the label terminology that  what what is a state considers a crime versus a violation versus an offense for example is not the basis upon which the immigration and for purposes of interpretating immigration regulations that that  be looking at because those terms can vary so much from state to state that if that were if you were to follow that principle then a person with one conviction for the same exact behavior and one state would be treated differently for purposes of immigration than a person discussed ok because i don't like you'd have to concede that they didn't get they didn't get booed not a single mention in this case i would like i would like to to say the that our position is that as with our does not necessarily it does discuss a number of point to two to two two parts of that decision i think are very important if you look at the second page it's the one two three fourth paragraph at the very end of that decision you might have it for you and of course it's the the board talks about because this is the crucial factor this is the crucial error that we have made in this case they reversed their prior decision they reversed the privatization specifically because they found that this could this this crime was convicted of the evidence standard and the distinction that the board was making was that this was not this was not a true criminal proceeding for that reason alone and if you look here at you know with which what is the language you're looking at where they say i'm looking at page for that reason alone i'm looking at page two it says right before the issue section the last sentence says because of this crucial factual error we reverse our decision and we reach a different conclusion ok that's all discussing analysis the one two three four five six paragraph of the very bottom it says this is the bedrock principle of the constitution that each element must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt it then cites to put no four where it discusses some of the factors that were listed earlier including a right to a jury trial including right to counsel and says that this is a petty offense those aren't even implicated here right so i think we're for they were in implicated gear but the but the with certainly deference to the board the board cited the determinative issue here which was whether or not this was a true criminal proceeding well that's not the department that's one of the issues that have to be looked at it's not determinative you're you're you're you're making an argument which is not true whether or not this was a crime under the b i gauge own directive they have to look and they multi factor test to determine whether this was a crime under the f under state law it is not a crime under under he has a back up argument however which he did make very strongly but he would prefer the former argument is back up is that we should once again revisit the tell tell this case to revisit the ira and to tell essentially permissible construction of the statute and the permissible construction of the statute you're saying that the has articulated is that any conviction is a crime that's what that's what the specific conviction that the court was looking at if found here there was a conviction of a crime for purposes of hiding because number one there was a form of judgment by the court number two there was a fine as required under the definition of conviction and number three he was convicted in a proceeding beyond a reasonable doubt these are the elements of the crime so you're saying there is more than one factor well if i did i did as he has mentioned earlier conviction has been defined i conviction alone as the find a guy in a conviction means crime yeah ok that that's i guess i want you to address my grief that the assertion that any other way of looking at this would be to hopeless variation across the country was something that justice alito raised in a different context but still talking about immigration law just a mon intended to broaden the concept of conviction because it had been so subject to the vagaries of state court and the vagaries of state law that it was it was result in inconsistent outcomes and that is the concern here that the board is trying to create some kind of bottom line or very you know quite broad yet a very bottom line thank for what is considered a conviction of a crime so we're back to conviction equals crime did they interpret it the definition of a conviction and they said you have to have to satisfy certain factors in order to be considered a conviction you need to speak specifically with ms nichols mr guy or she said and then it wasn't significant here and also the fact that as i read it's lazaro it said that he did that need beyond a reasonable doubt standard and the other factors that it found were the principle that was a sufficient but not necessary that's how i've read the decision they did have to go into the other factors because that was such an egregious procedural departure from constitutional principles  of the offense is significant enough for this at bare minimum to be remitted before the complete lack of clarity of a court and a complete failure to properly apply the factors and i would just remind the court in closing that  this man has been in this country for twenty eight years and this allows him to be moved he has no other eligibility for relief aside from cancellation how many convictions does he have i believe he has for how many