good morning may it please the court my name is henry facade and i represent petitioner mohammed who marry the petitioners asserting that the removal charges brought against him by the government in this case did not apply to him since the petitioner was wrongfully removed by the united states government specifically we are arguing that one of the charges namely the one for being convicted of a crime on march moral turpitude committed within five years  but how does race judicata bar the government from considering a new legal significance of the fact of that prior conviction in a subsequent am aeration proceeding i don't understand the doctrine of race  san diego california the petitioner originally entered the country with a visa in december of one thousand nine hundred two in january of one nine hundred ninety eight he was convicted of second degree burglary that burglary was committed in september of ninety seven within five years and that date of that mission as a result of that he was placed in the first removal proceedings and he was charged with twelve twenty seven a little high when you say government when it could have considered the prior conviction but did not act from considering it a new as a result of a subsequent convict i don't understand how race dukat even apply in this situation the fact that the government chose not to rely upon it doesn't mean that it was adjudicated in your client's favor but your honor they didn't rely on it in the first proceeding skeeters two convictions here litigated with regard to the first conviction and convince an immigration judge that the crime never occurred i could understand if you were then arguing five years later they can't rely on it because it never happened as a result of it but your argument is slightly different your argument is they could have relied on it but they chose or they did rely on it and now i'm not sure i can even formulate  so we could have been proceeding under two thousand and nine hundred ninety eight we are proceeding under two because he does have multiple criminal community no you know right right that seems to charges in this case right so and one of them is barred because it was but the decision in that exchange leaves some doubt whether it should be limited to expects the court said when the alien supper's another conviction or engages in further misconduct but neither going to the immigration laws the attorney general must make a new decision whether to deport in light of the new information in doing so she must consider the totality of the aliens conduct in real way the equities this is not a withdrawal of the earlier waiver it is rather themselves could require harsher judgement was the alien has shown a pattern of misbehavior it seems to me that in this case molino the court was really more i'm looking at if you're applying for yet a third waiver which gets denied because of your convictions in the balancing of equities to decide whether or not to grant the waiver of course it's appropriate to consider the prior criminal conduct that's not your argument your argument is that with regard to this second conviction the attorney granted they revert back to their status as a lawful permanent resident where they meet taney in this case when he has first proceedings and experimenting he accomplished lawful permanent resident he went from being a not immigrant or out of status to accomplishing permanent residence and being loved from here indefinitely he found reposed in the first proceedings and the government shouldn't be able to use of parts of the first thing to satisfy i think we understand your argument oral decision she stated that she can use the entire moral character mr mr bernard is entire good moral character in determining his remove ability which is just simply not a standard that anyone has ever heard of before this is page twenty two of the record kind of waiver that was in even before the court what you really are arguing the equivalent of expungement by whatever theory we get there you are sexually saying that the attorney general may not consider based on your client subsequent behavior that he had previously engaged in what would otherwise be a crime of moral turpitude on the first conviction we wouldn't miss it necessarily take it that far your honor because i can see for example of a situation where starting today in the future supposed to be tension were convicted of yet another offense at that point certainly he would be convicted of two crimes involving moral turpitude as under the section of the law or moreover a your your argument but i mean it's still things like the practical effect is the government is forever barred from considering the fact that he engaged in a crime a moral turpitude in one thousand nine hundred three for what for whatever future somehow convince the government that he had if you really claim to citizenship and the government bought into it and the immigration judge admitted that a u s citizen at some time in the future the government realize that mistake might have been made and he