just looking at the statute this morning it's it's it's as if the forgiveness can happen if the a g finds of the after conviction was connected to the aliens having been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty agree on it but i think what the b i e did that made it if we could sort of make you forgive them a little bit as they try to connect the man when the statute says very specifically it's the cruelty it's it's what happens to her in the event that makes her causes problems it's not what the government had said as it is is that there needs to be limits and this is an indeterminate definition but there are limits there you can only go so far and things become disconnected and this is a very connected case w what they did was and said we find is not connected and they didn't say it's ambiguous they said it's not connected because he didn't encourage it again he he didn't compel her to do it he didn't coerce or to do it she did not do it on behalf of him and she didn't ask for him to do it those were the the redefinitions that the board of immigration appeals use to define connected without saying to me that they're looking at the memo to find  do with immigration policy absolutely agree i think we're i think as i said at the beginning they had they wanted to reduce the you should have results oriented definition and it's how do we get another deportation checkmark basically that's what we're up against in the last couple years and increased numbers so if they wanted to it's an absurd definition of connected you know would define connected to as something that someone compels you to do courses you do or actively do it on behalf of and what's really sort of ironic with this very customized definition is an illuminated him as a victim because if you turned instead of punching the mistress and she punched him it would have been absurd because he wouldn't encourage it or ask her to punch me in the nose but they've context of an exception to a general rule barring a sort of cancellation of removal so it comes up in a context of the good moral character context where the board of immigration judges are frequently called on to to administer good character  the supreme court has recognized that when faced with these broad terms you know related to in connection with those kinds of terms and i would submit that connected to a similar kind of term you have a problem where the term could encompass anything  congressman it's possible that congress could mean that your honor but the supreme court has pointed to the need to look not just to the bare language but to make sure when you have a very broad definition like that you also look to the structure of yapping the context of the act you know  and then in another area limited the temporal connection of some things so if we're looking at the the fact that congress knew how to limit and connections in other areas points to the fact that connected to here has its ordinary meaning and it doesn't require a substantial connection doesn't require a temporal connection and as jeff ruff points out we we interpret related to connected to in accordance with i mean all these consistent with the kinds of things we do that are your honor i would emphasize that the supreme court has recognized that this is a potentially just kind of term use the sort of thing that can be hard to define and in this context where you usually have an agency that gives  concepts come from that that's what connected to that i think that was the brief attempt to by the agency to try to make sense of it and i agree it merits further fleshing out your honor that in the eight member it there may be the i mean there is some of the kind in response a good mckee's point i think kind of a number of the questions here i mean just looking at some of those definitions there's a there's a difference between something being can join and something being associated or in a you know relationship with i mean you know we it's you know to take that kind of hip own example security did did did request summary of permits before the agency the department of justice then took over the case addition per view stage and you know the evaluation was made like walk this is this is a difficult you know as judicial actually jesus and it looking at those kinds of things your honor we made the evaluation that it would be just a better sounder way to administer and go about this that or the court to to be man so the agency could have a better look at this  in the overall facts that were around there and i think then we got when we got to be actual event the september th king day as both is both elements of the agency emphasize what the husband he wasn't actually bayer he didn't tell him to go meet this person he didn't encourage or he didn't come hell or he didn't work for all these things that you could you could see drawing a connection with the ultimate crime he didn't assault her he didn't direct her to assault the person there was this attenuation in time where you know this is kind of a drawn you know through the course of the testimony said look you know i can see that you have remorse you know you know for the record that she was tearing up at you know at least you know one or other points you understood that it's this was a young immigration judge who there are two of them at different points  step of nation when you're dealing with a common word that has a common understanding and is not to be ambiguous by the court we don't get to the  agency i take i take the point when you have an unambiguous word that the court is in the st instance able to decide that you are i would i would just go he hit the point that we tried to bring across in our letter brief that we deal here with one of those very very potentially broad phrases that can be defined any of a number of ways matters of degree matters of different kinds of causation are different degrees of relationship and when you have that an overall complex deaf tory scheme that an agency does broadly you may read it and that can be a question of structure context objectives of the statute and those are the kinds of things your honor that i would suggest are are key areas of expertise institutional knowledge and understanding commit to something but if i can suggest maybe some some other considerations it's you know we have your rd party it would be i think the agency could potentially i know how who can how did things change depending on who say and act is committed on  honor i would i would emphasize the points in our briefs and to the extent the court has any doubt i think it would just confirm the benefit of remanded to get a