asked by the immigration judge at her initial hearing do you understand that you can be deported for that conviction when she was being read her rights pursuant to the notice to appear she said i do now but and this case that notice is rebutted by the fact that mr portis clearly then that no we have a we have a declaration in the record stating that she did not know now the below the court was generous enough to give us an we require immigrants to do that and we encourage attorneys to make sure that the accomplish that and in this case what happened was that we stripped the person of their right to reside in the united states and i don't see a rational basis for that at all amounts traffic immigrants is not a rational basis you can invite them to enter a plea that promotes a criminal justice system but really that is really supported by ninety percent  could apply not that they would be granted relief by any means but they could apply where the quid pro quo was for out of a guilty plea was for eligibility for to twelve that aggravated felons will not be eligible for to trial at two twelve c waiver was sufficient notice that in the event that congress did change the law which they are certainly entitled to do that is sufficient notice to distinguish that situation and this situation is no different from  his question is not about the application of sincere his question is whether it makes sense for congress to apparently penalize someone who has got only one the former eligible for discretionary relief that is available to the latter to answer that question because congress reasonably determined that it does not want criminal aliens to  the scheme set forth by congress offers no no difference at all between one and two when read but it's become one that is why i referred to sincere and that for that class of aliens who have a settled expectation of a way of applying for a discretionary waiver for oh i understand and no i don't think that it is necessarily a subjective test and a reasonable settled expectation i think was probably what was intended because i but there not subject to deportation removal at the time she was in that class of aliens who did not have an expectation could not have had an object with objectively reasonable expectation there was no equal protection violation here because in this court this is not in the same situation and as other iranians who rely on two twelve  why the decision of the district court should be a  if the court has no further questions however i again i would encourage the court to at least examine whether or not that constructive notice is rebutted by misquoted as expressed reliance based on what is required in the state of california being a read far far too narrow narrowly in there's a lot of preparation for this they started looking at a lot of kids there's a lot of different settings where the courts have analyze throughout the united states to close the misapplication and i think when we're talking about any black letter rule and same scared community the most obvious one is the conclusion of the majority's decision which says to twelve steve remains the vailable for aliens who enter pleas and the supreme court was worried that they were potential constitutional issues so the supreme court first examine whether it was clear or not the truth twelve the congress wanted to repeal too costly for everyone before i