based upon a disagreement as to what the nature of the allegations were and the order to show cause that's been clarified by a rather which was filed by the government which then makes clear that the argument that two twelve eight of the immigration statute is applicable to the issue which is presented to the court the the two issues which are principle joined in the brief there's a question first by the clear on this court's case law that if indeed mr o'mara stablished prejudice in the context of a motion dismissed the indictment that he would be entitled to a dismissal of the indictment before getting to the question of extreme prejudice for government is argued that the defendant would not have been eligible for relief even if he had established extreme hardship because he would not have had a visa immediately the where you are in the contact you can read this one i'm asking pardon you're saying it was defective because he wasn't told about the kind of relief he could get but i can figure out what kind of relief he  to charge him with the conviction of a second degree robbery under california law the time of his deportation proceeding he was eligible for relief from  showing in the stream hargett based upon that felony conviction under to twelve age of the immigration not having been advised of that and the case of all of them he's entitled to bring a the government's argument with respect to not having if these are available i was saying ike i can i say to face the fact that that is true not being able to read that visible and not being discussed in court because it was all kind of conviction for you know based upon your right to which the government provided to the court after the brief are filed he did have that kind of a conviction or the mother of a shortened was what amal and programs mothers in guatemala part of the children's mother is in guatemala she was born in guatemala she was a lawful permanent resident time mother has a green card she's have to decide to take those children to either guatemala or el salvador both of those countries were an extreme distress as of february of ninety seven and that hundred square case law is a relevant factor with respect to the child and the hardship to the children and the question of family unity that is not addressed by the district court judge nor if you've been addressed by the government in addition as to the father who was also from of course also after his wife deportation would come from section two forty five the only claim for relief is to forty five to forty five a requires that a defendant be not in an eligible the united states how we get to two twelve age is that one of the bases that reason only he would still have to address his other reason for being deported which was that he entered without inspection so we get to twelve age as one of the elements of two forty five and what the government lays out in we don't know that the court couldn't have continued the matter allow him to sort of wait it out but that would go against the plain language of the statute which requires the immediate availability of use of being immediately available not that would sure that it really matters but the defending himself is actually from guatemala his wife was born in el salvador and so the defendant's family is one last wife's el salvadorian and in their declarations the mother are a series of other issues as your honour's noted and i think i've responded to the person issue in full are there other questions regarding perhaps the sentencing or the failure to continue the matter for a new change of  thank you i would just like to have point out that as to the question of evil entry that was not raised below the entire history of you and briefing an argument took place of race upon a robbery in two twelve eight i'd also like to point out that there are places for relief that that's the most common kind of relief which is granted and much of this case this court case involved i would be completely meaningless it's in the end he legal entry precluded