could avoid removal by obtaining a state court order vacating his invalid conviction and seeking voluntary departure through a process analogous to the process and see jail gee this case is unique for three reasons mr judge that his lawyer had never advised him about the immigration consequences of his pleas to his lawyer confirmed before the district court that he did not provide competent advice and three an immigration lawyer concluded that garcia could have successfully obtained post conviction relief and immigration safely a conclusion the government does not contest on this record it was apparent to the immigration judge that mr could avoid removal by vacating his one prior conviction and seeking voluntary departure and the regulations required her to advise him of that release further the immigration judges housing mention a motion undermines the purported advise all by saying that there was nothing that she could do in the removal proceedings themselves and that she could only deal of information in front of her which is that he had the conviction and it made him portable was without it he was banned for life from and we're coming back and said basically that is correct your honor based on our dividend phone i think cherry departure to him at all or or the problem he was at one point he had the impression that he could go back to mexico and apply in mexico so he needed wave when she found out she realized that he was an aggravated felon at that point did she d ever challenge he could do a thing no she did not inform him that he was subject to a lifetime bar at that juncture or correct her original  although she told him that he wasn't going to be able to she told him that in the context at the point to which she was telling him that she could go aren't letting him believe that he could go back to mexico and apply anyway so it wasn't a voluntary departure but he didn't tell him that he might be able to do that but would be time and she didn't say but i could get grants with continuance and i felt like i want to correct the main defect with her  mention of the state court motion is that she although she mentioned that he may very well have a motion he could buy in state court she never informed mr turner garcia that that motion could actually remove a barrier to him seeking relief in immigration honor he did say that on several occasions however most of the quotes that the government has selected occurred before of immigration judge ever mention that he had a motion that he can file in state court and before mr correct your honor the immigration judge originally advised mr chino garcia that if he wanted to apply for any sort of benefit withholding protection under the convention against torture that you would not have an opportunity for him to do that until june or july and that was when he made the original statements about wanting to be out of custody however at the nd hearing he informed the judge again that his wife had a pending occasion for him to become a lawful permanent risk resident and again said he wanted to go back to mexico it was always had happened with so i can make some money and get a lawyer and come back that is correct your honor is guiding goal throughout the proceeding consequences of his pleas specifically under to d s that is specifically what landed him in removal proceedings his attorneys failure to advise him of how this idiot rail is to titian for a green card had he known about the immigration consequences as evidence in his declaration to the district court he never would have pled guilty and he would have taken his case to trial just so that he could preserve that benefit i think that is meaningfully different from other forms of post conviction relief or other collateral appeals of criminal convictions in that the violation the constitutional violation during the criminal proceeding is directly tethered to his subsequent placement and removal proceedings and the swift specifically and informed the immigration judge that he had no idea of the consequences under these particular circumstances immigration judge was required to inform  yet thank you your honor strauss may please the court benjamin holly for the united states picking up on that last point we expect immigration judges to be experts in immigration law what we don't and immigration related but how to overturn how to vacate an otherwise final criminal conviction even when it's idea based is still you know a there are lot of procedures involved in that and now it appears that the defens trying to cabin their their request to just the dia though it's not clear to me how how that rule would function because anytime someone said well i pled guilty but i've since learned there was you know other information that i didn't know at the time brady type material when he said you know i really want to leave when i go back to mexico and you know i get these waivers she didn't say the way that you can do that because in fact she didn't even know we come to that at that point and then when she didn't know it she said you're not eligible for voluntary departure but what does that mean to somebody who's just knowing immigration i had no idea that that was connected up to his other problem which is  so she did say right after he said you may have the potion i can set it over if you would like that's when he then said well you know my understanding was i could fish in the from mexico she then said that's going to be very difficult based on the condition the conviction i just told you you could so i mean i agree with what you're saying that she never said this will be impossible or she made it clear that just all but impossible since i don't remember the exact phrasing she used but it's very unlikely that we'll be able to get this and again this is right after she said we can continue t there's no rule that the judge couldn't give the advice or position if he didn't have to but she did and that is by the laws and the reason that she doesn't have to because the regulations require the i j a to give advice about juvenile respondent about as i dast really if where there's any apparent eligibility and so the mention of a lack of contact with his father was sufficient trigger for there was a duty to advise i'm not arguing that the immigration judge needed to grant sufficient continuances for mr turner garcia to actually obtain post conviction relief that would remain in the discretion of the immigration judge but at minimum she was required to advise him correct that in light of his priorities set forth on the record in light of the fact that he mentioned that he had an approved by one hundred and thirty that his wife had filed that his u s citizen wife u s citizen children all lived in sacramento and that he the aggravated felony conviction however now that he has been ordered removed rather than granted voluntary departure it complicates things significantly because you would have to seek a motion to reopen as immigration case which of course is a matter of disc is not always granted and so that is there would be additional steps that he would need to take beyond simply vacating the conviction and seeking voluntary departure which is what was available to him at the time of removal thank you very much