and at the age of seventeen he says being his conviction at the time of the deportation hearing he was twenty years old and his parents had they become citizens prior to the conclusion of the deportation proceeding or even after and if he'd had an opportunity to appeal to the b i a it would have made a tremendous difference because he would have been immediately available these are we and under the same provision that was cited earlier which is eleven fifty one  right that's all based on st cyr correct no your honor that that's actually the if i can create a little bit of a setting for your question because i think that that your quote of the what you've indicated is absolutely correct in sort of venue exactly it's just a difference that you and the same retroactive analysis that was applied in things here should be applied to the present statute and when you when you look at the the anakin provision that the government relies on as the basis for trying to say to congress judge in the context of an ever hearing that responsibility is not placed on the on the immigration officer so in terms of a new disability that was created by the by the expedited removal proceedings this was an form is that the eye is that the immigration officer even though there is no regulation that deals with an immigration officer but the immigration officer in this context had an obligation to inform  distinction has a different significance than it does in the context of the the waiver analysis and the lever analysis there's no question that someone who's not even given the hearing where someone would have been required to advise him of his apparent eligibility when they the the analysis goes one further step the first step is the congress intend for that provision to apply retroactively it's clear from things here that it did not and if you look at the footnote forty three insincere that the court cites to this case is absolutely on all fours with every unit because if you look at the provisions that were significant to the court marietta which were in i c n n if the court found it it's a financial hardship that that's that you know that's kind of part and parcel of deportation in the context of of someone being removed from the country what relocation of the family the court found that was somewhat important but not but not dispositive and there you go to the court notes some different pieces of some different factors that are much more significant much more central to extreme hardship and one is the preservation of the family action whether it required becoming a citizen whether it required filing and i won thirty degree or not advised that that there was any possible means available to them and had they even so advised they would have taken action also on the extreme hardship comp mother was his best friend he was her confidant he had a very special relationship with her he had a very special relationship with all of his siblings and he was the cornerstone of the family not just in assisting his father financially but through two significant critical emotional support for his younger siblings the like mr area to help raise his younger siblings as a result of their family circumstances he was also one of the first children that had gone through or that it was to the public school system and therefore he was there his parents connection to american culture because he spoke english and also they relied on him largely because of his experience his age and the fact that the fact that he provided so much emotional support for everyone else in the family you want i'd like to see in the rest of my  the lives of so many people the discussion on page twenty three to twenty five was persuasive or at least that's the suggestion from the way of spite of that wording and i think it's important to recognize this issue was pointed out in the district court and if it did not come out with any evidence that ultimately the notice issue was somewhat circular because at the start of it if he didn't have retroactive the fact that he is absolutely barred and nothing that would have happened had any effect in this case on him i mean you know if it applies and there is some relief a library i can't answer that question i'm sorry i don't know the answer to i mean i think a lot of what the animated the st cyr discussion was that defense counsel advised aliens about immigration relief and in fact know the number of immediately available these and it's not clear from the case that's exactly when the immigration hearing faceplates but we know that the case made it to the ninth circuit in one thousand nine hundred ninety six so i figure it was a couple of years there at least but there the court said that what we're what we're going to do is not look and speculate as to what the i g would have done whether that would've been a continuance whether there wasn't we're not going to go down some road that no other court has gone down before and make that determination here and in the criminal cont t we're seeing it on a thirteen twenty six appeal that's all the more reason i think the government indicated that the issue was raised below well that's not altogether correct either the issue was raised in the context of two forty five in connection with explanation of things here in trying to distinguish me on pas from this case it's still based on the vested rights issue which was not the basis for the court's decision and since here the court actually looked to see if a new disability attached to events that already passed and the court clearly says that the political analysis is a commonsense functional analysis and i think that's what your honour's have taken in terms of how what he has been expected to know that this was going to happen the the respect to what would have occurred later so i think that that's that's not correct either in terms of whether or not reliance is required i think that when you when you look at january one thousand nine hundred four the date mr gonzales pled guilty and you ask yourself the change in law that occurred between that date and the date of the deportation did that impose a new disability on him from what would have existed on the day of his conviction and the answer is clear yes it did in fact it imposed several new disabilities on him notify him of what relief he may have available to him prior to being deprived of a hearing there are clear disabilities that that come out of that the last issue that i wanted to just very briefly exploited removal proceeding or an immigration proceeding and the unlike mr gonzales the the immigration officers an area entitle them to a hearing and we see the difference that came about when they didn't have them to a hearing because at that point he was required to be notified of what relief he had available and and then we get into the same inquiries that we would have gotten into here had been given that in fact the status of the last day is that the immigration officer can decide whether or not someone gets a hearing whether whether to give them road a or road b and if you're given road the all relief is cut off and if you're given road a then all the rights that you may have had some exist and that impairment that exist because of that law coming into