the courts retain jurisdiction under the illegal immigration reform and immigrant responsibility act to determine whether they have jurisdiction which includes determining whether a particular offense constitutes a predicate offense under the jurisdiction stripping provisions u s c twelve twenty seven which means in this case the court retains jurisdiction over this case to determine whether the petitioner in this case was convicted of a reasons one is we believe from the record it's unclear if you look at the record of conviction if he was convicted under a one or a five because it's a record of convention it's only unclear if you read the wrong the the arizona statute a one it's broader than the definition of theft offense for two reasons one because lack of consent is an essential element of a theft offense and that lack of content element is really if you read closely not present in a one although it requires that the perpetrator act without legal authority that's not necessarily equate to lack of  consensus and the second reason is that defense the generic definition requires criminal intent a one only requires the intention to deprive and i would argue that that is a lower standard then a criminal intent ok furthermore and it is that in order to qualify as an aggravated felony the petitioner has to be convicted of a if the crime under which the individual was convicted has a maximum term of imprisonment of more than one year in this case at the time that he was sentenced to a year in prison the crime was determined to be a misdemeanor under arizona law the maximum time for a misdemeanor six months so therefore you don't get to the actual term of imprisonment because it's more of a arrested of it  bar review of the petition for a view your honor is turning to the first issue on the question of whether his conviction of fast by control of property in arizona apparently looking at the record he had entered an auto part dealership court and we submit that under the great categorical approach outlined in taylor it is because the language of the statute neatly and precisely tracks the language required for a theft offense this co there the conviction documents did not indicate which subsection the alien had been convicted under that particular arizona statute here the conviction documents do indicate that subsection borrowed her employer's car and planned to return it and that's quite different than the crime that was committed in this case i just want to quickly address the second major issue in this case we believe which is whether the two convictions for domestic violence against the mother of  child are two crimes involving moral turpitude which would also deprive this court of jurisdiction he argues that the fact that his girlfriend and mother and the mother of his child were not really  traumatically injured nene's that it wasn't a crime involving moral turpitude and we were just a myth that that's not the main point and this court has recognized that's not the main point the main point is that the relationship between spouses or people who stand in addition to each other like spouses is one of trust and dependency and here i'm referring to the court's language in greg ada and it's for that reason that violence between two individuals situated in that fashion is quite different than violence between two strangers spousal or abuse of one companion living companion is an act of baseness and depravity that is contrary to american ethics again person with the intent to injure or insult or provoke such person but the point is it prohibits the knowing touching of the individual and the use convicted under that statute and that again meshes with consent is inherent in the statute under which he was convicted in arizona there is he wasn't convicted he was convicted of taking auto parts out of an auto dealership and he was convicted under language where it's it's all it's all intent if the individual is being convicted under a criminal statute the intent is the same whether it be worded intent to deprive or merely intent is irrelevant but if he's been convicted a low criminal statute surely his in turpitude for abusing his living companion and third he was convicted of a crime of violence again for those convictions for spousal abuse thank you your honor is there now if there are no furthe questions thank you relational really longer than the sentence for the crime itself well the court in this case the trial court decided that it could be put under the ninth circuit if that happens and that's what happened in  case the court can't look to the sentence actually imposed to determine whether the year requirement is met they must look at the maximum sentence under the misdemeanor statute which is six months and from the arizona statutes which are which are quite broad and only require that somebody the person convicted knowingly touched a domestic relation with and sent intention