assumption the immigration judge and the attorney both had a duty to advise him about to talk each because he was apparently eligible and this court has held that the applicant need not meet all statutory requirements on their face at the time of the hearing for that duty to leave for someone who has been committed who has committed an aggravated felony and here i quote the bar if that person has previously been admitted to the united states as an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence now issue with respect to the the hardship analysis and here are the district court found that he would not have been able to show hardship to his mother under the relevant standard assuming arguendo that it's a standard of extremely unusual hardship that district court erred here because he did have evidence that you could plausibly have met that standard b i explained it's not so restrictive that only a handful of applicants will qualify such as applicants who have a qualifying relative with a serious medical condition and in fact here his mother had a number of serious medical conditions but she also had other children who helped her correct that i'd like to focus on several agency decisions that we've cited in the briefs where people who were subject to this heightened bar were actually able to show extremely unusual hardship on facts that were receive treatment in mexico and they didn't want him to relocate that satisfied the extremely unusual hardship challenge is a little different dependency position then a mother is one of her children to several children we have a case that's close to this one where there are several children and one of the children is deemed to be in such a position that it would be an extremely serious hardship if that one child were deported you have a case like that i don't think there's a case on either side and of course facts are going to be unique in each case so i don't think there is a case where we've identified a particular child being the primary support where there was an emotional bond with that child only as a result of the family tragedy where the mother and son cared for the father as he died of brain cancer and that son played the primary role in supporting the mother in her practical means in her medical needs and in her emotional needs  there is not a case on either side i would agree but i also didn't want to point to another agency decision that involved a wife where she had i would say similar or perhaps less serious medical conditions applicant's name was redacted but it cited on our think we can all concede that the mom had some very difficult circumstances but doesn't she have to show or don't you have to show this extreme hardship at the time of the removal proceedings and he was in jail that right now had been for had maintained his ties in prison and that supported a finding of the hardship waiver and of plausibility and here mr morris is parents are his mother and siblings drove four hours each way to visit him at the fire camps where he in fact was working a frontline firefighter on behalf of the state of california but at the same time his siblings were taking care of the mom supporting her canonically right she was you know i don't believe she addressed that specifically to the siblings were their daughter had another family and so they helped the daughter provided was that the mother would sometimes been with her there was a son who lived with the mother who had some difficulties there was a rd son that we didn't hear much about and i believe was the one who gave her some money but what i want to bring the court back to was that the emotional bond was with mr ramirez and he was the one that was providing the primary support to her which the attorney who submitted the expert declaration identified as being highly significant to the analysis and this i i do i believe that the court  t not analyzing the basis for the expert's opinion the expert went through point by point the different aspects of this record that would have helped him to show that he could meet that hardship standard that counsel the the  at the court was not required to credit the expert's opinion wasn't the court was not required to credit it but the court found no reason to dispute it the court stated accepting the declaration i will find that he does not meet the hardship standard but right there was nothing about the declaration that was disputed by the government there was no aspect of his quality a shortlist trying to make a conclusion of law it in so far as all of the factual matters were that's fine for the court to accept that no court is required to accept the conclusions of law that a proffer but an expert well diaz explains that an expert can speak to a legal terminology if it doesn't have a specialized legal meaning the word possibility does not have a specialized legal meaning but leaving that aside as the court stated when the expert offered here was an extensive analysis of the facts based on his own experience and his own familiarity with cases involving individuals with serious ok i always says that but that a court has to supported the determination of plausibility and there are a number of district court decisions that we've cited i think ari it is one of the few at this level that has relied on an expert's opinion so how could it be error then for the district court to say i've looked at the declaration i'm not persuaded it doesn't have to be a winning case just because it's strong so if the expert disagrees with the conclusion that the court reached after looking at the case the thora tell us that it is error because here the court substituted its own determination what montral meant the expert is the one who is in immigration court arguing cases under montral and stated that primary support would be sufficient to meet the monorail standard when we're talking about a plausibility analysis the district court did not even acknowledge that the expert had reached that good morning and may it please the court here said all three united states the district court correctly rejected ramirez's collateral attack on his deportation order underlying his illegal reentry conviction because the immigration judge correctly ordered  deported under the law as it existed at the time of the immigration hearing and the immigration judge had jurisdiction over the multiple hearings of which mr ramirez personally appeared represented by counsel before he was ordered court now very clearly stated l p r is convicted of aggravated felonies are not eligible for to twelve each relief in two thousand and twelve the board of immigration appeals handed down rodriguez and rodriguez the board of immigration appeals said there are some circuit courts that have said that l p r is who enter that the time when the status of a person when they enter the united states whether they're an l p r are not matters to true twelve age eligibility in those circuits is have to follow those circuits laws in these circuits where the courts have not ruled that way or have cases going the other way as in this circuit i js are bound by the opinion which is that the timing of l a different issue this port had made statements indicating that about dealing with the same stanch it right the same bar it was the same bar however it was a different issue because the issue was whether the petitioner who was admitted into united states at a point of entry by misrepresenting bright notice it was the pill was talking about the what's good for the goose is good for the gander right your honor the issue is what clear statements this court had made at the time about whether an l p r was eligible for to twelve age relief and at that time the clear statement that this court had made were made by ten a good she and hubby b and both of those cases said categorically are not eligible the be a gave the immigration judge clear instructions about what to do in that circumstance and that was to hold that the petitioner was not eligible and that's exactly what the immigration judge did here and that's what this court said the immigration judge needs to do is provide notice based on the law at the time of the hearing and that was the law at the time hearing the some cases cited by petitioners counsel before the district court different standard for the lawyer credible argument that the lawyer should have recognized that there was an issue and there was some different law out there and should at least have made the argument to preserve the the issues so if we go they are let's say there was an effective assistance of that the only argument that we have for ineffective assistance of counsel is one paragraph in petitioners brief we don't know what the lawyer advised maybe the lawyer told mr ramirez look the law could be changing we could have an argument here maybe what you should do is hang out wait in immigration detention appeal this to the board of immigration appeal you know wait and see if the law changes you know you have that option however you're probably going to be detained during that time you're probably going to be sitting in immigration custody and it could take years for that to happen and you might know when the lawyer could have provided him with that advice and given that advice mr ramirez could have said no i don't want to do that i just want to go back to mexico we don't know what happened then because we don't know what happened it's not appropriate for this court at this time to consider whether the immigration attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel because we simply don't have a record that's developed on in addition is simply not plausible as the district court found that even if he had been advised that he could apply for to twelve each release that to twelve each relief would have been granted st mr ramirez was can we tell you you know it's just it's not a high standard right it is a high standard your honor well you don't have to he didn't have to show that it would have been granted no your honor but he did have to show that it might have been the standard is if you know he didn't have to show had been probable but he had to show that the hardship you had to show that there was a factual basis on which the i and i j could conclude that he's entitled to the relief yes but the high bar that he had to meet the very high bar he had to meet because he had been convicted of a violent crime remember he had been convicted of holding a knife to a young man's throat and threatening to kill him which in any measure is a violent crime and because he had been convicted of that violent crime he would have to meet the standard that his mother would suffer extraordinary circumstances resulting in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship and that is a very high bar and there is no plausible way that he would have been able to make that show  as the district court in a very thorough and very well documented opinion stated he simply did not show that his mother would suffer anything beyond even the common results of deportation let alone this extremely high bar that he would have been required to meet the only hardship that the only evidence that he put forth was his mother's decoration and the decoration of the immigration expert and the only hardship that his mother claimed that she would suffer was minimal economic hardship there was no evidence that he provided any real economic support to her and in fact it was the other way around and the emotional hardship as the dis found was the emotional bond that he had with her in the emotional support that he provided was also provided by the three other children that she had who supported her both economically and emotionally all of the cases that even  immigration expert cited were vastly different from the case from mr ramirez this case in all of those other cases either the person was the sole financial and emotional support for the the for the  potentially deported alien or there were some extraordinary and and more importantly well documented factors here there was no medical records there were no tax returns there was no documentation as additional were found that would support the sort of vague allegations that mr mears his mother made that she would suffer extreme and extraordinarily unusual hardship if you so it is simply not plausible that even if he were eligible and even if that is the  had notified him that he was eligible to apply that he such relief would have it and because the district courts very thorough and well documented opinion is correct we would submit and so you're saying that the i j should have been aware of it that you weren't aware of it for your brief the i j a is presumed to be intimately familiar with the immigration but our attorneys who are representing clients are presumed to be familiar specially if you're using them for your argument yes your honor i apologize i considered submitting at twenty eight j i wasn't sure if that was appropriate since it's a foundational case for to go take the other case that you were citing v ashcroft is that in your brief know your honor and say might i considered s government counsel stating that there were no medical records mr mears his mother submitted significant medical records regarding her medical issues and she and her son documented his role in assisting her it is not correct that we have insufficient evidence or insufficient development of the i e c claim there is a declaration where it is actually myself who spoke with a prior tourney who stated that he believed that mr ramirez was not eligible because he was a p r and the issue of ineffective assistance is developed legally and is tied to the same facts regarding the law at the time of the hearing and i did want to apologize to the court with respect to garcia frausto this is the case relied on by the court to a spontaneous party stood inside it with respect to practical and emotional support that case is actually not cited will it's from two thousand and two i should have made that note in my own brief ok i discussed it thank you thank you very much thank you counsel the matter