domitable position that just the age of the victim is not an element of the crime the crime is not divisible so the rule prevails not the exception the exception being of course the modified categorical this court has never extended the divisible analysis to the victim but you always talk about conduct right there of the conduct of the state court you are getting into some obstructions in the midpoint of your case start it refers to adults persons the argument the government is that persons includes minors but that's another issue the complaint clearly referenced the age of the victim the age of the victim being sixteen from there the immigration judge said well the crime is divisible therefore the complaint comes in as a rule in the category of divisible the two the argument of the people is that since the crime only references persons by definition is divisible because persons in compas is minors and adults this court is never there there's no authority for that and i don't i think that would simply transmute the entire penal code into a divisible statute i sexual abuse of a minor under i think it's a live in a one a forty three right and so where do you go for the very simple fact that when you plead guilty you plead guilty to the four corners of the statute do not plead guilty to the complaint he pleaded guilty to the sheet which is the complaint people the website categorical approach but you only engage in the modified categorical if the crime is divisible and our statute the only thing in the record here that references the age of the victim is the complaint the complaint is inadmissible unless the statute is found to be divisible it is my position there's nothing remotely divisible about this statute consequently the complaint doesn't come in that's the rule and the only argument that the people make that transmutes the statute into being divisible is the idea that person incompetence is adults and children justice for some years there is a big difference i was at the differences that can be used in a subsequent civil proceeding but for my purposes the point is simply that but this is a civil proceeding business it's not a problem that the court found was that that wasn't sufficient to establish how is this case distinguishable well this case is distinguishable because there's a complaint in which the alien was so you're relying on the complaint alone and under the stafford variation to tailor so if a clerk's entry of a guilty plea was signed by the clerk sometimes time by the judge doesn't satisfy the requirement of factual allegations in the plea are taken as true and in this case the alien was pleading no contest to what was represented in the complaint and the complaint berger and makes a difference whether there's a colloquy because it's known burger the idea that there was a minute order to just an entry of us of a statute was held by the court the defendant committed a prior crime of violence the government must provide the sense in court with the terms of the plea agreement or the transcript of a colloquy between the judge and the defendant in which the factual basis of the plea was confirmed by the defendant or some comparable digital record of this information and in our case the what was presented was the complaint and their pleas and the cases that we there was no colloquy with what he had done it was only a documentary and snow amberger says a minute order isn't sufficient to prove the acts committed the similar analysis was applied then the aliens plea related to the complaint and all the factual allegations in the complaint would be taken as true so i do see attention ye ileum was convicted of sexual battery and because that state conviction did not and in company it was broader then the sexual abuse of a minor provision under the i and the modified categorical approach would apply in which this court has held that charging documents like the complain if we are to look at the franklin case which is this man convicted of a crime in this case aggravated felony to wit sexual abuse of a minor eleven zero one a grand forty three that's the issue and you can prove that one of two ways either a guilty plea to categorical offense which shows that he did commit this crime because he committed acts which were within the generic definition of sexual abuse or a minor or if that is not available you can show the documents of conviction which show that in this colloquy or in his terms of agreement or another admissible documents of conviction he did the crime so i appreciate your trying to raise the level of abstraction to a favorable level but let's get back to what the cases actually hold and this is a very good question the judge not supposed to you how do you distinguish smith well complaint comes in but by itself is never enough then you have to use it that's made in conjunction with a plea colloquy that would cure that ambiguity and we simply don't have this here all we have is a printout of the docket sheet and if i could just this  enough standing alone i think there's very sound policy reasons for that the complaint is generated by most i think is the case there's the complaint is not my problem is i completely made the argument that this is not divisible but i've quoted it many times and otherwise why wouldn't the complaint be anough the question is did he admit the commission of a felony to wit sexual abuse of a minor and the complaint says you committed a felony on a sixteen year old how do you plead he says guilty it's not enough to show  alone should never be enough because the complaint is generated by an interested party it's generated by the people so it makes very good policy sense that the complaint is a starting point but it can't be enough you need a judicial act  in open court subject to cross examination complaints are not written by judges and they're written by interested parties for that reason there are never enough and i would think the case of the