old are the fuses of the oldest was born in two thousand and one sixteen and the others are younger of eleven and eight and fourteen year olds miss lucy was taken in immigration custody and placed in removal proceedings she was taken to a jail in june the wisconsin the dodge county jail and there are removal hearing took place by television you immigration judges here in chicago at the final hearing in september thirtieth two thousand and fourteen just plain aster this question so do you wish to accept this is a final order of removal to seventy nine of the record she said yes you either by filing a motion to reconsider with the immigration court or by filing a direct appeal to the board mission peals shortly after the order of deportation september thirtieth two thousand and fourteen the family retained me and i filed  filed a direct appeal to the b i a which dismissed it several months later without permitting briefing concluding that the appeal had been waived by mr milosevic they were mad at the case back to the immigration court for consideration of the motions you consider she could have obtained that the judge could have clearly continued the case for the judy casement that remember your honour's disclose she was on represented she was never physically brought to the court here in chicago she was held in a jail in another state dodge county waiver she lived there much of her life her mother is suffering from cancer she has three us citizen children in us vs lopez mendoza the supreme court held that to satisfy due process a waiver of appeal in an immigration case must be considered and intelligent your own is i would submit that the alleged waiver that happened in this case the temper thirty of two thousand and fourteen was knighted was not considered he was not intelligent it mattered rodriguez the s a case involving a non citizen who was on represented his removal hearing the board determined that the waiver was not knowing and intelligent and they'd look to the same words the judge klein used here do you accept this decision the alleged waiver of a right to appeal was not knowing and intelligent pick your honor if you look at the transcript of the september thirtieth hearing it's obvious that she was confused about what was taking place they said she was not advised by judge klein of a right to seek this waiver in the witnesses could have testified that she would have granted that waive nevertheless she was barred from seeking it not to look her right to seek it with the immigration court runners to the regulation that provides for a waiver of appeal  concurrence judge resign talks about a spur of the moment waiver in the heat of intimidating hearing in that case mr garcia was told he had no hope of relief he was told incorrectly that his conviction was an aggravated felony but it was not an levy an immigration law that was not exercised in this case your honor as we would ask that it be that it should have been granted but this on represent a woman being held in jail in another state should have been given the opportunity to seek the waiver she should have been told alien who has committed has been convicted of the offense relating to a controlled substance which could under the jurisdictional bar thus bars her from asking this court to consider factual questions and for that reason primarily we're o in this case understood the consequences of her waiver of appeal after making clear that she understood how to ask for continuances have to talk about relief and her potential applications and her options in immigration proceedings she then after being asked if she accepted the decision is final ask the immigration judge about the logistics of her removal making clear that she understood what her decision in hearing means ab out on the petitioners asking that she now be allowed to change her mind when she made that decision knowingly and voluntarily and intelligently and there is no room in the regulations of the statute for her to do were that you do the groom of the room all right your honor while her case is sympathetic and her personal circumstances are sympathetic they don't have any bearing on the fact that she decided to accept her the immigration judge's decision status and made her ineligible for many forms of relief and the one form of relief from removal that remained for her the ability to apply for asylum withholding and protection under the convention against torture she actively abandoned that application during her immigration proceedings and was told the immigration judge that she no longer sought to pursue that form of relief and that therefore she was she was left with very little she she did express that she was potentially eligible for you he said at the immigration judge made sure to inform her of that form of relief even though he had no jurisdiction to consider the application then gave her an application and she ultimately filed that application with the u ins the united states citizenship and immigration service but that application is ultimately tonight and so she really has no relief and she and she must be held to the waiver that she made her decision to accept the immigration judges challenge that before the court but the court is limited in its jurisdiction because for criminal offenses it's also limited because shoot now articulate a more sophisticated challenge that a litany of due process errors made her waver ineffective in some way but she has been exhausted those challenges before the board in the emigre actually died and therefore the court also baxter's texan to consider those issues and so really while her case is sympathetic but we're left  was it knowing and intelligent i would submit it was not i would submit that is a question of law for this court that you clearly do have jurisdiction i believe counsel just asserted that mr low skill was given the u v s application by the immigration judge the record does not reflect that she states that on the september thirtieth hearing that she did not receive an application as far as the ninth the application for asylum that she did receive she expressed her frustration at not being able to complete the application it's a complex application it's about eight or nine pages long she said i don't have that information my mother has achieved has cancer clearly she was frustrated clearly she did not understand what was happening also she was not told by the judge to very basic things the judge should not tell her that she could apply for the waiver of the odd one ninety two with the court she was led to believe she would not qualify for that  also she was not told of her right to see what's called voluntary departure which might assist with coming back here after the conviction that the first one that she had was what's called first offender probation certain states attorneys on the course may recall what that is now the last fourteen ten probation she was told that she could successfully completed that it would not be considered a conviction that was one thousand nine hundred eight this court did not address that issue until several years later completed it it would be as illinois statute says discharged and dismissed nevertheless she was put in removal proceedings because that happened between the time perhaps the case was filed for permanent residence and when she was granted permanent residence nevertheless your honor and total as respondent has acknowledged this is a very sympathetic case but it's also more than that it's a clear violation of due process and clear violation of the statute would ask your honour's to grant this petition for the use of this woman can be reunited with the children