well here saying versus  that it was unreasonable for the original counsel to concede to remove ability d when at that time there was i don't publish six circuit decision finding and this offense is not a c i n t second  allowing mr singh to have drawn that concession produces an unjust result because it will deprive him of strip him of his lawful permanent resident status separate him from his wife his daughter his mother and sister and finally subsequent to that original conception there's been intervening case law that makes it much more clear that his crime is not one that involves moral turpitude subsequent to that concession the that's exactly what the six circuit did in the hannah decision hannah had conceded remove ability subsequent to that concession the six circuit issue the un published decision in a different thing case finding that it was not a c i n while the six circuits decisions that are binding on the court and it is very powerful very persuasive rule making her case law from the th circuit the now in three decisions the six circuit has carefully analyzed michigan where michigan is located is perhaps a circuit is best position to make this determination since it has the most experience in reviewing cases involving seventy five thousand and twenty two whether it's in the immigration context or in a criminal context you had said earlier that that the agency ignored hannah until her name and has the agency been following hernandez to the best of my knowledge it has the following hernandez the immigration judges and b i have not found this conviction this offense to be assigned to the hernandez it's relatively recent it's only about two years old and the attorney general was that in the th circuit the board would have to follow the six circuits hernandez decision so to stick circuit would be following the reasoning of hernandez in the six or in this in any cases that arose six or however in the nd circuit where there has been no decision on this particular statute the board certainly could revisit the issue here and decided in a similar manner originally does that this particular statute was not a c m t am i why would we not do a fair to the six circuit given that we're talking about michigan law here the agency's position that a conviction under this michigan statute is not a crime involving moral turpitude your honor at this point it's difficult for me to say simply because the is the board didn't even reach the c m t issue because it found the concession it binding because the concession in evidence of remove that bill it so the question the threshold question is about six circuit laws is a bit of a red herring because he never gets over the threshold issue the petitioner they are arguing actions the argument is that holding the petitioner to the concession would be an unjust agency had alleged that were crimes involving moral turpitude and it could certainly be a tactical decision of the council to concede remove ability before the court and the and the negative aspects and here the negative aspect would be his criminal record it's certainly one of the aspects of a criminal record is a person's both their acknowledgment  what they did wrong previously and there are rehabilitation in this particular instance per i can't say simply because we don't have a insight into what counsel respect came there was no ineffective reaches circumstances sufficient to conclude that he should not be banned by his former counsel judicial admissions and that's it and we don't know why at the agency was thinking do a more false analysis well your honor the board points out why there isn't a more fulsome analysis there which is that the petitioner quote has not argued or presented agree just circumstances sufficient conclude if you look back at the petitioners brief before the board the petitioner may have argued it the essence of the stampede but he gave no indication about why the performance was so bad when the small within the fair category the concession was the result of unreasonable professional judgment well your honor i think there are two aspects of this there's whether or not as such a claim under matter of law and similar to this particular case the contention there in hayward was that counsel they were arguing that counsel with ineffective were suggesting that there was some sort of unres felony it's a law with less clear joined his removal proceedings in two thousand and five so even if the state of law at the time of the removal proceedings presented buyable arguments counsel could raise on hate with perhaps however the determination of which crimes co would not make him removable he would still be admissible because it's a petty offense as a single c i empty so they to a maximum potential jail time of ninety three dollars days it would not have resulted in