thirteen twenty six conviction at the deportation hearing the immigration judge your own easily concluded that he had been convicted of an aggravated felony and that he was therefore you know it's a bill for relief from deportation in cheat additional authorities and apparently didn't do that here any more but i did submit a list of this you can give and there's a case directly control the outcome here called united states versus camacho locos and that's a four fifty third nine twenty eight it's a two thousand and six case from the ninth circuit and in fact case specifically with respect to prejudice that court held that this court held that where a prejudice analysis we have someone who had been a citizen other than a legal permanent resident for nine years he's been living in the united states for virtually his entire life his parents and his siblings four siblings live in escondido and and if we even if we're to analyze whether he had a plausible claim certainly act that he had lived in this country for so long that he was a legal permanent resident for nine years and that he had family in escondido that that at least rises  deported or the immigration judge to determine that he committed an aggravated felony and the aggravated felony was negligent homicide as a result of driving a vehicle of the blood alcohol level in any event after the those cases came after the the deportation hearing for camacho lopez that his immigration hearing was unfair and the due process had been filed so the specifically address was the quote unquote retroactivity argument that has  gallon or not but our position is that this is discussed to the very heart of what it means to carry the burden of proof and have to prove someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and to allow cross examination on on what ultimately goes invariably testifies over objection that in his opinion if this document existed it would be in the a file and you have the jury isn't allowed to hear that in fact they held those documents sometimes the fact that shredded them a hands of an apparently the government's position with respect to with respect to unlawful deportations based on the twenty day letter that i received yesterday is that a reinstatement by itself and the support thirteen twenty six conviction as opposed to an enhanced under thirteen twenty six b which was the issue illuminati yaga regardless of whether the underlying the port complied with due process so taken to its logical conclusion yaga dealt with the enhancement under thirteen twenty six b provision to the twenty year statutory maximum but even little money ya got specifically contemplated at least one full and fair hearing with the opportunity for judicial review be a summary procedure based on what's happened before we you know morales we held that we support it we have held the statutory construction but the question in a criminal case is whether or not and i don't think the last change at all by morality whether or not due process was afforded and the initial removal and i don't i don't see anything in morales that would change that or say that now now we have to look to the reinstatement to see whether the reinst unconstitutional but can you address this camacho case which i was just cited to us this morning and i've got a car in front of me but i didn't see it on that one so i deportation context i mean this is a primary challenge i say ok you've got it wrong in the first instance i don't even have you to rely on we're going to decide that that is one aggravated felony and therefore it applies to you and of record we have the judge deliberating on precisely this point in saying look i find specifically that this is this type of crime is one that doesn't merit any type of  added at the most when i'm asking you to do is to wait until there's the decision that makes it clear whether he has good law again and at a minimum that i'm asking the court to look at the procedure but as a criminal case when it's a predicate conviction and and we know that there is now in hindsight a due process error and that's in the present so awfully that you use this case and you for the questions that this really isn't fundamentally retroactivity question with respect to this opinion the question is the state of prior presidents does not alter the fundamental  the fundamental fairness of being a brilliant section thirty twenty six charges today on a deportation that everyone agrees was invalid and the current law celestially it's not a question of going back in time and the question is to mr surviv prosecuted today we know that that the court wasn't good under today's law and i would also add that mr esteban has actually there's other data position even than mr camacho lopez because as your honor pointed out there was no