vated felony means illicit trafficking of a controlled substance including a drug trafficking crime as defined as section one twenty four see correct as a finite in section circuit creates a single category of state and federal offenses involving illicit trafficking either marketing of drugs so in other words illicit trafficking is a generic crime being defined by that  that sentence and by the usage of the for it including a drug trafficking crime is merely an illustration illustration of a subset but is not the controlling language counseled that somebody convicted of a state drug crime the distribution of drug distribution the does not require as an element proof of something of value in exchange proof and obviously the new federal drug crimes don't require proof of the exchange of value simply because you're dealing with such sketchy transactions to be in with well i would know you're under that that's incorrect offenses do and some do not in illinois specifically the both offenses for which my client was convicted can be accomplished with or without remuneration therefore is not an element but even within illinois there is also illinois penalizes the selling of drugs and those states actually have a strategy that punishes or penalizes the selling of drugs which is different than the session where the nobody  aspect some do not that's an element the point is that the concept of drug trafficking concept of trafficking as used in both the federal drug code and all state drug codes doesn't require as much hamilton pointed out the exchange of value it's all about the felony crimes anyway and stuff set aside mere possession crimes but that's not what we're dealing with here but felony drug trafficking crimes do not require to consideration and so as the term is used in this statute and in any drug code it doesn't require an exchange of value and the cases that hold that are just  we're not talking about common everyday parlance we're talking about a very specific i technically use of the term well i believe we're bound as a court is by the supreme because this is a very specific section of the code that we're talking about drug crimes so it requires more than so at the every day usage well statute we're talking about trafficking used in the federal drug code use as used that as that term is used in state drug codes both state legislatures and the congress are casting a very wide net and trying to capture all forms of delivery and distribution in the felony crimes and not none of them require strictly  a few discreet crimes too but as a general matter the definition of possession with intent to deliver possession with intent to distribute does not require a financial exchange over mean aeration or exchange of value and those w illustration that is nad to generic language being defined and also as you read the statute if you read the immigration statutes if a defendant has been convicted or really has been convicted under twenty one we look at the elements of either a state or a federal offense and look for the element of commercial of the commercial aspect remuneration the we call it such and that's already what we do for virtually any other crime within the i a e a that's what we do for same things as what we do for crimes of violence that's exactly what we do for crimes of violence in which the supreme court has recently it delved into for crimes of violence for example which is an aggravated felony as well we look at is there an element of the use of force so the reading that i'm proposing is not only the correct reading within the english language but it's also supported by the  schiavo in that that's what we do already how many federal crimes are included if your reading of the statute is correct how many federal drug crimes count based on elements only how many federal federal drug crimes don't require an exchange about that is correct right i mean it's hard to believe that your interpretation the statute is reasonable that congress would have legislated to include in the exclusion of bar any person from almost any form of really and so controlled substance crimes make a person removable so we are looking for something very stringent we're looking for is conduct that congress was trying to to to penalize and so a drug trafficking a controlled substance crime would make the person removable and that's exactly what it would have been here there east to drug related control substance offenses that make the person removable the only difference is whether he can then apply for discretionary believe or not so quite looking at i only have forty two seconds i want to move to the motion to reopen which is also another instance in which the board of immigration appeals ignore the statutory language and finally whether or not the agency applied the correct standard to nine and to reopen with regard to the finding of that petitioners on my convictions for aggravated felony is there are a couple points i'd like to respond to that the council makes first of all if the court is to look clearly at the just the language of the statute itself and or to take that statute at face value as the petitioners council would have  so there are a couple of problems presented the first is that to read illicit trafficking in a controlled substance as a broader category that includes a drug trafficking crime meaning that a drug tra including examples such as crimes under the controlled substances act rather jerk very specifically references crimes under the controlled substances act and of course that of i have taken a look at this language including the night of the third circuit's have found it to be ambiguous for these very reasons and have looked to the legislative history of the of the statute and legislative history shows that category of drug trafficking crimes it wasn't until nine hundred ninety that the language was added prior to that references illicit trafficking crimes and in looking at this the ninth circuit and the third circuit have both noted that the intent here was to actually brought in the this statute to include state crimes and not just include federal crimes and also specifically found that there was no intent that congress wanted to change those crimes that were originally included in the drug trafficking crime category based on this the court should defer to the board's finding here because it's a permissible interpretation of the statute the board here found that the  that the petitioner would have would have committed a crime either under one of two routes which is the same discussion that that the board followed in matter of davis and that would be either because the crime is punishable as a felony under the c s a which is known as a hypothetical fellow felony a federal felony route or because the feds contains a tragically element in this regard the board specifically found that petitioners convictions here consistent with and they were not in any way broader than the crimes under the c s a under twenty one u s c eight forty one one are you conceding that the term trafficking is used  in this statute requires an exchange of value no your honor what i was saying is that it does not and that's what the board found here that if there is no there was no need for there to be a tracking element or any type of requires an exchange of value either even accepting the interpretation that the term including means a subset of the broader can well i doubt that's the way it's been interpreted by by the board in this case your hon of art and it's not meant to require an exchange of value because most drug crimes do not so for the board to interpret the term trafficking in this statute is requiring some sort of commercial transaction strikes me as wrong ok or i'm not base a bit and i know there's dicta and in the lopez decision suggesting that but that strikes me as just am not going to pass judgment on that one of the others i'm only here to defend the board's decision and i got it right but i just would like to move on quickly to the other two issues that are raised in this case which are the denial of position as claim under this claims on for instance for disparate incidents that were unrelated by our known persons that occurred over a period of five years during which petitioner was not even in mexico and none of these cases involve either torture of his immediate family members or threats or any kind of serious threats or threats of any type actually tore his family members and look has the agency found here that all of the witnesses really speculated that the cartel was involved in any of these incidents and if you look at the record there  are specific moments where the petitioner himself concedes he doesn't know who these people were that were looking for him and that's ago he concedes that the people going to his house and the people that broke into his house on another occasion could have been different people you can see is that the shots that were fired  house likely didn't have anything to do with him his wife and daughter also only speculated as to who these people were that were that they were harassing them in different ways in mexico but more importantly the facts or just don't compel a finding that there's a substantial likelihood of torture because none of these incidents involved any types of threats of harm i'm just your case in this regard is most analogous to this court's finding views here as the lynch where again there were numerous incidents that occurred over a period of many years and no indication that a prior drug dealer who had actually previously been tortured by cartel members and he owed them thirty thousand dollars and the cartel had threatened his family in looking in  looking seeking information on him and actually then chilled members of his family so the case that they face here is clearly single from rodriguez mole era and his moral light is more is more like the case in your  e there's also no merit to the claim that the agency applied the encourage standard of review here to criticize the board for requiring a high in specific burden as this court has found the harsh definition of torture does set a high bar of relief and also under pat is required to make a particular showing that they face an individual as threat of torture not just the fact that these incidents do happen in mexico because certainly they do but more specifically it needs to be tied to that individual and naturally it was not made here and finally just has not made any showing that there was evidence that was ignored in his case although he's he's unhappy with the results and maybe with some of the conclusions that were deny a motion to reopen the supreme court and several cases has discussed the fact that motions trooping are strongly to savor because there is an interest in bringing to close immigration cases not allowing people to endlessly reopen their cases and  in this case the petitioner submitted evidence which is very similar to his previous evidence and no evidence regarding some unfortunate kidnapping of his family members by a cartel well suspected cartel members however these were extended family members and the board found that position or simply did not make any connection to himself personally that this incident in any way indicated that he himself would likely face the same the same result based on the foregoing the board properly concluded the position would not be his heavy burden of showing that is if this if this proceedings were reminded that they would likely change the outcome of his case finally there's no those there's  court talks about the fact that the reason that those at the motion to reopen was created was stashed it was put into a statute is essentially because they were concerned about aliens reopening their cases and  trying to prolong their stays in the united states so it wasn't in any way to limit the board's discretion but rather to try to curb motions to reopen based on the foregoing the court should that applies to prima facia in the context of a new form of relief for a discretionary from a relief like cancellation this is scads of mandatory from a belief so the board discretion on whether they would grant or not doesn't matter they have to his family home including overt acts as breaking into his house with people dressed in military gear corrupt military officials so it's highly distinguishable and the important point about cad is that the your honor's question was regarding between the board of immigration appeals interpreter you listed trafficking the issue with that in my view is that we cannot leave an a special meaning so it doesn't fall there is legal drug trafficking just like for example dispensing i guess would be well i'm not talking about a pharmacist but it