i'd like to i'll keep an eye on the clock and i'd like to reserve two minutes for a rebuttal i represent the petitioner diane langley and these proceedings she is the forty eight year old citizen of the united kingdom and like many if not most of the petitioners in this court on immigration appeals she has u s and yemeni members of her husband and three children so of course removal from the united states has very serious consequences for her and her immediate family members and because of the drastic start with the question of whether pickering is a reasonable interpretation of the statute because if it is we owe chevron deference to it start with that and then go from there don't worry i'm i'm sorry are you asking me asked about the validity of pickering in general or as it would apply to the facts of this time actually and i'm starting with the transcript of proceedings in his case makes it clear the purpose of the modification of the conviction was the purpose of the modification of conviction made was to prevent deportation a federal matter not to rectify an error in the initial proceeding yes some sort of legal defect in the underlying conviction the fact that the that the prosecutor agreed to withdraw are the original charging document and substitute a new complaint amended information and and and there's no record of that information here there's no record of the reasons for the motion to change guilty plea all we have  conversation between the judge and ms langley the trial court judge clearly indicating that that one of the motivating reasons behind doing this was to ameliorate immigration consequences however let me let me i think i understand what you're saying we we have a portion of a record of the state court proceeding and that portion clearly suggests and procedure now art we're going down a path of saying no matter what we have by way of a record there might be some oh there might be some along and any time you look at any record of any court you can always say oh there might be some or there might be a decision of the court later on overruling anything we look at so you're you want to start down this path of saying well we know i'm sorry you know there's more what we know that there was an amended information we know that there was a motion to fake cake i think the conviction withdraw the guilty plea how do you know it's in the district court minutes and in this record and this page back to eighty two after record and it's also the fact that the motion was made and was granted it's reflected in the change of plea hearing transcript well we her original plea and that so that's what we should be assuming absent proof from the government that there was some other or there was solely for him to worry about the clock when you just want to did you couldn't just do it because it was sympathetic to her because of potential immigration it would be and this is very much like the decision and pin hole that the third circuit just in now where you're representing your  the starting place to be don't look at the law under which the conviction was vacated that did not happen in this case no one until this why am i incorrect the judge based it on but it does not the government does not present the amended information it does not present the motion to vacate guilty plea the burden of proof is on the government and whatever that show heard me what would the either  it we don't know but you represent her you have access to the records but i do not have a criminal record and even if i did it's not and it was not presented to the agency was vacated particularly in light of the conversation we've just had doesn't that suggest that the board itself was an entirely clear that it was clearly for that purpose but based on what was initial burden of proving this conviction congress has chosen to step to the definition of conviction as being at the time of judgement not after the time of all appeals have been exhausted or at a time judgment for immigration purposes in this case the area doesn't come forth with any evidence that would be done to cut that finding in fact the alien asks the court to presume that it is that some i'm going to evidence out there would would the alien believe that that information contained contained evidence that we've undercut the finding that was based on immigration purposes yes that would certainly be information you know you would want to bring forward simply watch the court to presume that there was some legal basis other than the stated bases that the judge indicates in the transcript that the police hearing which is to the modified resolution of this case is in response to the possibility that she could be deported so if the board did have doubts if what they say tends to show there's a reflection on the boards for the knowledge that there may have been legitimate reasons at least w they would have to bring forth some evidence some evidence and then they would have to and perhaps the burden they were trying to make sure that they had analyzed and put forth all the evidence necessary to negate any notion that it was done for purposes back they cater was who would bear the consequence of the uncertain and i believe the government would then have to show that that they cater was done for the purposes of avoiding the immigration consequences which presumably is why the information on the charging  misdemeanor theft involves an amount of less than a thousand dollars that is evidence of that is in this record what the government wants to do is i believe and appropriately shift the burden to ms langley to produce evidence of her to portability and that cannot be done there is a bill in congress now that he was saying your time is way expired so if you want to just sum up quickly has finally given you a lot of extra time just for fun