can thank you very much but this case is about a husband and wife who have lived in the united states for parts of the fifteen years who have an eleven year old united states citizen daughter have led a crime free productive lives in the united states and now face permanent banishment from this country due to the ineffective assistance of counsel they received from their prior attorney this was the consolidation of three separate cases proving something like clearly erroneous that we have with the digit is far far greater responsibility that your client has if you agree with that law that that is your burden i agree it is a pure factual determination your honor but i would i it's a legal conclusion you wanted because the the lawyer has to make a decision based on the facts presented to him in this case of what the best strategy may be and what advice he's giving and we assert that the record shows could make but a lawyer could also make a mistake and that i'm generally familiar with the law so i think i could rush through this application things might work out for my client would you agree that would be a tactical decision i'm generally  that one of the things that the attorney has to do is explain to his client his reasoning his advice and they have to make an informed decision and that was one of the things that he did not do here but let me go through if i can the three ok actual proceeding what is your best authority for how we evaluate your ineffective assistance of counsel claim because it's not really taking violation if it deprives the client in this case petitioners here are their opportunity to perfect their application for this case permit residency and that's what happened here you have to determination whether the person should actually be deported there was an initiation of the proceedings by the immigration naturalization service correct that is correct but there doesn't need to be a deportation proceeding in order proceeding was fair and we can rely upon the outcome is not the whole idea well that's one aspect of it your honor but also if the if an individual goes to an attorney and that attorney tells cases that this court that person has been deprived of the right to apply for permanent residency and they're in the night then back to the systems of counsel and due process there are many more normally when you switch from normal right to case where the court would hold as we would have to do here that prior to the initiation of any proceeding me advice to your client which was an appropriate  about the role of the attorney being very important that they have to explain the entire process to the to the individual have to explain what their rights are what their options are here he completely failed to do that and if  statute specifically says that if you're in the united states illegally for it was seven years and ten years and you he remained in the united states illegally then you can obtain permanent residency based on your ten te people to break the law then the lawyer has to come up with some different scenario than what you're saying is that he can't come up with a different scenario he has to advise them to break the law i'm not insuring i'm not arguing the ethics of it what i'm saying supreme court precedent saying it's constitutional for the supreme court for congress to pass laws that are retroactive and that's a losing proposition so what he should have done is said your other option you have come to me for advice and people come to me for place all the time in th understood that suspension of the importation was going to be repealed and that cancellation of removal would replace them and us would have to have ten years versus seven years of physical presence but if you look at page twenty five of the record and you can take all of that with the against the effects of the stop time rule that was the theory presented to the immigration judge that theory has been proven wrong over time we now know that the stop sign rule applies to both transitional deportation proceedings as well as making it unfair and fundamentally unfair and they have to actually show that there was something or some prejudice but let's assume that the ultimate prejudice always in the immigration context is an order of should go ahead and continue violating the law and go into hiding and i don't think the court wants to send that message out not leave that aside it's already been flushed out we agree that that is encouraging some of the via the law i'll just briefly state that we do think the law does not encourage people to remain here for ten years the cancellation law is there in recognition that if a person doesn't remain here for ten years and they are removeable that they should at least be given some consideration as to what they have done in the past ten years with their life it's a softening it is not an encouragement or a carrot to have people stay here for ten years i think it's two different ways to look at the same stature and i don't you think it would be an attorney's advice to tell a client that  right now it's seven years but the law is changing and in my view when the law changes you need ten years and you won't qualify for ten years but you're at the same token i think it's tough know that these petitioners would have been able to remain undetected for another year granted they had made it a half or so years but there is a big if there we can't say that this particular advice was wrong if it was unfortunate was not the proximate cause of the prejudice in this case they could have been found they could have been placed in proceedings there's a huge if it's not had they got this advice through outcome would have been different that huge if intervenes and takes away a prejudice argument and even if there had been ten years that wouldn't necessarily make them whole three in terms of the other criteria going to require and certainly not there is a whole nother issue here with regard to showing prima facia eligibility for relief i mean these there has already been a finding that these are people of good moral asking for they're not asking that they be placed in that they have suspension of deportation without concern for the stop time they're asking for cancellation of removal without concern for stop time ru of judicial legislation and i hate to say that that's what they're asking for a cancellation without concern for stuff that doesn't exist never has existed and i don't think the court can grant the form really nor can the court say take this case back and or rather region that where there is a violation the constitution there must be a remedy have any case who's dealt with that issue where there's actually been a due process by allowing and demonstrated when the courts had fashioned a remedy in unique situations like this where you're confined by the by prior case law and by the fact that these people were placed in a particular they're proceeding over another type of proceeding in their release they're asking for never existed they would have to be created a whole clock i don't against the government can provide them the opportunity of filing on a ten year i have not i'm not suggesting anything think that's a good idea who it like to do is find out from you what how other court placed an application for asylum we wasn't frivolous to chance the frivolous they can at least go for that form of relief that's the only form really really available to them at this point they can't have they can't have cancellation because based on everything else so there's no way we can they were a couple cases cited here some of which were towards his cause some of which related to christie things but have we had situations where we determined that the pre filing that little window before the effective date you know it's basically to have that application educated even though it didn't work out that would there asylum application they never file that's that's pretty much what i recommended that if the court is so disposed to find out that everything is falling against the government that you know they've gone through all the hoops there was at the moment there was you know effective advice versus a tackle that there was prejudice that that if we make them whole the best we knew thank god that back in the proceedings and removal proceedings that's where you're placed and if you want to you may press forward with an asylum application and that's the best we can do at this point  i think it's important to focus on what the board immigration appeals at the port of aggression appeals only reached one issue which was that there's a proper tactical decision on the part of the attorney's advice we believe that's the only issue the court proceeding within the court you're expanding due process back to out of the court prior to filing to a lawyer and vice and we're sort of wrestling with just due process as we understand