criminal conviction somehow set aside and that that given that criminal conviction there would be no form up of waiver or relief that she could apply for so that's correct and she wasn't ceded to deportation that seawater correct correct so the concern is that if we give relief to her and every similarly situated alien who did the same thing why should the law in her age alien to depart wait and see if the law changes favorably even though they didn't avail themselves of any remedies of appeal that would that were problem i'm having with your argument is that after a time of the original  that there was no c falsity really that was available and so the advice that was given was legally correct and to the extent that the alien relied on that legally correct  then there was a knowing and voluntary waiver of objection to the departure and she left but then she commits another illegal act by re entering and now checking the deportation and then she's immediately illegally reentering and now throwing herself at the feet of this court saying i'm entitled to a whole new level of review that i waved once before and then i waited to see if the is i don't see if you process violations and it is not what a bowl to reward your clients kind given the fact that she waived all of the procedures that were available to her at the time and  determined an end bar case that to twelve c relief was not available to a person in this situation and the attorney general had taken that case on certification and subsequently this court in leon determined that that regulation does not bar a motion to reopen in a case like this where the person was ordered to bo resident because of the fact in the initial initial order and they are the board allows that collateral attack if she can show a gross miscarriage she was that night that way for well it was a one opportunity to apply for a waiver it was not her one opportunity to stay in the country and resist deportation and in the end that's what i keep coming back to in my own mind because the talk to her specific me about consulting an attorney about the possibility of having a criminal conviction changed about the possibility of citizenship for a father and she was interested in one of those she wanted to get to see a lot of that day and so to tell me that she relied glimmer of indication in there that she was any more interested in math than any of the other groups to relief because she was for her reasons determined to get to feel wanted that they take care of her kids so speaking realistically i mean this is what you're offering up more than hypothetical is that you have any reason to think you pointed to suggest that if the i j a had said something differently with regard to waiver her conduct or her decision would have been any different well if if if the to tijuana six didn't want to be detained what's do you want to come back and not be thang there's no sign in that transcript that anything he said differently about waiver would have altered her decision as far as i can  briarpatch i've been trying to draw analogies and the one that we hit most often is the asylum context for automatically the the granting of asylum is something that the attorney general has having a seven years and relinquish them asylum but not sure that they're deserving as a matter of discretion usually based on certain criminal activities are not showing rehabilitation sort of like in the cancellation context but just whether demonstrated exceptional extremely unusual hardship that i'm quantifiable factor that has been relegated to the attorney general's discretion whereas the silent if they do meet the statutory requirements generally discretion is and we don't really interest and so forth fundamentally although the justice department hasn't exercise the power the still got the power and and i'm not sure that really as a constitutional matter changes  from from a human perspective everybody understands nobody's trying to say the i j a screwed up i j did what i j and frankly i do believe that everything i say during questions reflect my beliefs i think this i j tried hard to see if there was relief that might be available he just didn't know what the supreme court was subsequently going to do insincere but that brings me to something i struggle with in this case which is our quite different paths it's always going to be the case that some parties are going to be advantaged and disadvantaged when a supreme court decision is issued while the case is on direct review and although the immigration j