and these are all legal issues that need to be addressed by this court the first issue is whether or not the attorney general acted in an ultra virus manner and which he changed the standard for to twelve each a second issue  to that is whether or not the application of that high standard if proper is appropriate in this matter where the individual had not only already pled to the crime but already filed an application for relief pursu whether or not legally those are equivalent is an issue presented before this court and i'm curious now on your retroactive argument doesn't that analysis depend in part on whether or not someone who is contemplating a plea would be affected by the knowledge that the mob was going to change other consequences is malpractise i think that is something that is taken to heart and in this particular instance your honor his plea had occurred it was a guilty conviction to a plea what difference would there have been  extreme hardship the standard for to twelve each to a new standard the exceptional extraordinary unusual hardship so i think that change there is significant and i think the change done by the change on this instance is also significant change surely he would be eligible for relief but the possibility of relief is drastically changed counsel i did a search to see if i could find any  interpreting fantasy or that if there was any door left open it to be a why door there there aren't any cases they all seem to turn on the fact th general you're still representing both last i heard i think in talking about the after virus argument i think it's really useful to put this regulation and the statute in its proper context section general that extreme hardship will come will result from the deportation and the extreme hardship will go to a qualifying relative note that it's that the statute provides that before the attorney general enters into his discretionary determination it must be established that extreme hardship crew would accrue to it to a qualifying relative or obviously an adjudicator could assume for purposes of argument that it does so the discretionary again determination comes after he satisfy says burden of extreme hardship of the regulation in question twelve twelve the seven does not apply to modify the statutory extreme hardship language at all it will experience extreme hardship where the crime involved is violent or dangerous and less denial of the application would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship and i think it's relevant to point out that the exceptional extremely unusual qualifying relative been in any event in this context where discretion discretionary determination doesn't come into play until after extreme hardship in the statutory provision is established it's clear that the regulation is a proper exercise of the attorney general's authority the regulation is not at all inconsistent with the statute because it deals only with the question when the attorney general how the attorney general exercises his discretion discretionary authority and because the standards that the board used rationally derive from the statute here as i pointed out the attorney general's discretionary authority has bro discretionary authority is the only matter implicated in this regulation and here the distinction between violent and dangerous criminal offenses is rationally related to a national immigration policy of not  it's criminals as well that certainly dangerous criminals so clearly under i alice chavez this regulation passed passes muster the court your honor i'm just anxious for you to get to the retroactivity now you know i was just starting on th appeal alternatively the claim fails on its merits because the regular regulation does not at that impair any vested rights it's only relates to the us the attorney general's discretion it only provides discretionary determination i mean that's the real point and the only point is we need the heightened because he has a crime of violence you would agree that he has a heightened burden or they have the attorney general has to invoke a heightened exercises discretion at all where there was a violent or dangerous crime would that be permissible of course because it's the congress's wrestle him with the germination to to make such discretionary here obviously the you know again it's not a question of trying to draw a conclusion what we're trying to understand is the range of this question that the attorney general has because the decision made here is to what's retroactive and whether the door is too far closer or open enough it's going to fact be on this case so i understand there's a while this case is extremely important i can suggest is that if the court is interested in obviously the court is then we're happy to provide a brief because obviously that argument wasn't made we didn't have occasion to respond to it and i mean this is a then i'm not you know saying that it shouldn't you know we're happy to do so but i think at this time i'm not really prepared to do to answer your question i think the attorney general would like to think about  argue everything that was that is at issue in this case perhaps i was wrong in not anticipating that the court would have a question regarding a matter which really was implicated by this the briefs and i apologize for that something that was appropriately raised in this before this court and i would further bad that the i e is limited to the regulations and they would not be able to find that the regulations are not constitutional non permanent residents now this court has upheld that non criminal residents can be held to a lower standard and permanent residence in the citing this and that that does not violate equal protection because it's congress choice to do that honor i think that by raising it in changing the standard attorney general uses he has no thought choosing not to exercise that discretion which gives the law know what fact and in that instance i think the  government before the partment of homeland security and it was not until three months after the new regulations were promulgated was there of decision by me and gratian judge on this so if you take a look