who the government contends can be permanently separated from her family for her one drug related offense when despite the fact that when she committed her crime she was eligible for two twelve c relief which would have allowed her to remain claims that it's absurd to think that someone you know when they go to commit a crime there can say only they can get to twelve so you will be free we agree on that too we agree it's absurd we don't make that argument and that's what the supreme court addressed in the  supreme court in that case mr williams who is a raster in that case was sued and the issue where was whether or not subsequent to that when congress and acted the amendments of the one nine hundred ninety new damages here and the supreme court said that's not the issue the issue is even the kind that's a legal at the time even if it's morally reprehensible which they said it was in that situation if the change in law that congress didn't say i knew the in the appeal to go see relief that that repeal should apply the past conduct so the question is does the new change the law apply new consequences to the past conduct and that's and who said no that's not fair that's not fair to the individual who engaged in the fraud but nowhere did was there a claim that well the person in the aids in the fraud thought way could be subjected to that claim similarly in judge wright in decision in looked at the other cases where reliance was required but we would assert your honor that the court when the court looked at kolob i looked at the reliance issue that it was looking at cases where it was not argued that the conduct in question was what was to submission at the outset of oral arguments today that ms rosa robust of course had no reasonable expectation settled expectation of attaining to twelve c relief when she was deciding whether to commit th the reason to focus on all of that authority in turn is that those cases don't focus on conduct versus conviction conduct versus plea they  it's not focused on the employee who went out and harassed his coworkers the focus is on the employer what the employer settled expectations were at that point and the reason i inland graph the state of the law prior to the change was that the employer could avoid responding at superior liability by showing that it had a program of avoiding sexual harassment after that  court fines retroactivity back to the plea of guilty is based on a mountain of evidence that it is common practice for aliens to consider to try to see relief when they're talking about their plea they talk about it in open court it's obvious to everyone that that's a key factor in the decision making process so the court is focusing very clearly on reasonable expectations part of the argument for example when would of course reasonably entitle them or reasonably cause them to plan to sue because of their profit motive owners operators would likely be motivated by their own potential financial gain but it is an objectively reliance test and the courts the supreme court doesn't shy away from from using the word reliance in the context of reasonable or objective reliance so time period but really that's that's a sufficient but not a necessary ground for this court to find in the government's favor because in a broader sense even if that conduct had terminated well prior to two april date effectively to the statute based on all the controlling authority and frankly any reasonable view of what expectations settled expectations are there could be  the conduct preceded the the effective date of the statute for example if it really came down to that then i think it would be important to the indictment that those facts be part of the record they happen to be part of the record here and i think the court can decide the question on the broader legal question so i don't know that it matters but i think i think the court has before it all th or to a determination of some kind of eligibility criteria for asylum then it would be important to have the record so that all those facts are before the reviewing court and if the excerpts of record if it came up with just an excerpt of record that wasn't complete then this court wouldn't have the proper factual record for review so i think that's where the that's where the point of distinction would lie intensive case it would be preferable to do that i think it is specially since the record contains more than just the opinion that and sometimes more than the testimony that a lot of background information that wouldn't necessarily be in the  of others in the conspiracy she conduct though is what is relevant to the facts of the lang graph analysis and that's a difference she made me she pleaded guilty to conspiracy that is contrast with through eighty nine