made these the court there are two issues that i would like to discuss are addressed to this honorable court today the first one being whether the petitioner should be ordered removed from the united states for being convicted assault in michigan and number two whether petitioner firmly was settled in canada before he entered the united states as an immigrant first of all i'd like to a little bit talk about the facts of the case because i believe it's important in this case the petitioner in this case is a thirty four year old christian from iraq he entered the united states as a visitor when he was only fourteen years old and this was back in one nine hundred ninety eight he became a lawful permanent resident of the united states through a petition that was filed by his parents and in between these years he traveled back and forth between canada and the united states  since he had a sister who lived in canada and he was waiting for his his grant of immigrant visa to be should really say let's take the easy one first i don't see how you win on the different now but it seems to be the functional equivalent so i don't see how you went on there on your own or an offer of firm resettlement and this whole lot for resettlement is not it should not apply to people like my client but it does it shouldn't because this is a case that i don't believe has ever been decided before my client is not asking for asylum at the time that he entered the united states like most of these you know and landmark cases do they come to the united states firm resettlement is never affected by what happens afterwards and you want something to be two steps removed afterwards you want  to consider what happened in the united states and then change country conditions after that is all you can do is there any authority that supports your position before we spend a lot of time on this one of your arguments well if you look at all the cases the landmark cases for firm resettlement it's always someone who was traveling from country to country and they entered the united states seeking refuge my clients not seeking refugee enter the united states as a lawful permanent resident it wasn't until a decade after that his firm resettlement i'm sorry that his claim for asylum became you know became necessary it was because of the change country conditions in iraq that caused him to apply for asylum this claim didn't know rise until ten years after he entered the united states so i don't believe we should look back to see when certain any case that supports your argument that's the thing this this  frame framework that applies to this case the first issue in this case is the first step in the framework is the government has the burden of proving that he firmly was settled and i don't believe he the did that just because you know he testified that he was granted a landed immigrant status the the bigger issue comes here is if he is removed to canada canada will not accept him today they will not allow him to reenter the united canada because canada has a law that if you're out for two years as a landed immigrant you have abandoned your residency so for him to go back to canada that's not going to happen so what's going to happen is they're going to send a bike back to iraq and he is withheld from being removed to iraq so we are in a very odd situation here and this case you know has to be decided you know by by this court because no other court can decide for him if from a settlement should apply in this case i don't believe it should apply because like i said you know will no longer allow him to return to their countries which are showing there's no case on that particular point right your honor that issue also and the issue of you know why why is what if we look at the history affirm a set of laws and why from resettlement even came out in the first place the whole intention was to stop people from form shopping from going from country to country and obtaining status and then coming to the united states and then up painting trying up to obtain status here but that's not the case here this is a case that this guy has been here as a permanent resident for years and his claim for asylum didn't even a rise in till ten years later so if it weren't for the change country conditions then he would not he would he would be able he would not be able to apply for asylum but because of the change country conditions we should look at it from that point on his claim for phone with settlement should should begin at that point at the point of him being you know being not allowed to return you know to his  country do we know that he's not going to be allowed to return to canada because i mean your honor it's all over the internet i mean that's the law in canada that if you do not if you leave the country for a period of two or more years that you cannot return to that country may i want to direct your attention to math primary concern in the case that this this concession of remove ability that mr ha counsel made on his behalf pin ten or so years ago has given him a lot of problems in having his other claim considered you tell what us in your  that there's been a change in the law what you don't tell us in your brewery it is you don't refer to any of the authorities and they are it might assist us in defending the standard under which it would be determined whether he should be relieved from such a concession do you have anything to suggest to us today any authorities that would be appropriate for us to cases both indicate that we you've talked about the change in the law but you haven't you haven't we've got a sad whether a change in the law you know whether the are all circumstances would justify relief from that concession and you don't know what this here is a party that says you know a change in the law is sufficient or you know there must be such and such circumstances and i'm asking you do you have anything that supplants that other piece the standard not cases that a stead wish that there may have been a change  movement in the direction of the law i'm saying if you can help with that with what the overall standard should be well there you know i when i did my research i didn't find any case law that says when there is a change in the law that that person can go back and change his plea there is not no such thing but what i like to the court to look at is he was already ordered removed years ago and in two thousand i believe three are i'm sorry two thousand and six so then when we reopen the case once the case is reopened you go back to you know as if the case is brand new there is no final order removal so at that point when the case got reopened based on changed country conditions i believe the judge should have given us the opportunity to change the plea on the basis of the law being changed the judge did not allow me to do that she said oh this is something that should have been done before well that was the time that i had to address that issue that was the only day that i had him at the individual hearing to address that issue and judge did not allow me the opportunity to do that but because the case got reopened and it's a brand new case based on you know initially the judge had denied his asylum denied withholding tonight everything and found no past persecution or fear of future persecution and then when the case got reopened it's a brand new case and because it's a brand new case the court should have considered  arguments on you know whether or not the law should take effect on the pleadings the initial pleadings life that a brand new case why isn't it just a new proceeding to determine change country conditions it is it is your honor but that's what i mean it's a new so why do you start over on the other things because we're having enough trouble finality in immigration proceedings without saying that you know a change country condition claim you reopen everything else in the case because your honor the case is not  understand and i agree with you that it is it is not a brand new case it's of course a case that you're reopening based on change country conditions but because his case is reopened in this before the court but the question is a purpose for which i reopened if it's reopened in connection with what's the new situation on the ground in the country where you claim you're going to be persecuted what does that have to do with whether in this case the other issue of whether the crime was a crime or moral  though the court is allowed to hear any and all applications for relief if there's a new application for example the person just got married and he wasn't married at the initial proceedings then he has a lot to file for and just status so the same should take place as far as you know the pleadings in the court you know the how the person has first attorney pled to the allegations and the charge so i don't look at it like ok if you're allowed to bring in new claims new applications for relief you should be able to address the the pleadings that were initially pleaded by his initial attorney i think that should be you know we should be able to change that if we need to because other changes do take place when you reopen a case you're on i'd also like to moral turpitude so i don't see how this person should pay the price for the rest of his life just because of a law that existed more than ten years ago i think this court should consider that and also consider and and hoard documents yours to take judicial notice you know i don't have a document in front of me your honor i mean this is something that i was reviewing you know online through the the legal acts of the canada legal immigration acts and i was reviewing that and notice that if someone were to leave the country for an x amount of years two years or more that he would not be able to return but you know even not considering that even if we don't consider that firmly settlement should not apply to these kind of people it should apply for say to someone who is going from country to country trying to find resettlement and this is not the case this is a unique case as unique facts and i'd like the court to consider those facts and consider these circumstances is an unpublished case and it's not precedent but it appears that that seeing has been applied by the board and it does appear that there's a very viable legal argument ability that was not a valuable to him at the ten his counsel originally made the concession and he could have sought could need to have to have argued that that change in the law you might not have the would would have dealt with it doesn't mean it would seem to be a valuable to based on the language of the last quiz and actually based on some case authority other than in various court suppose one doesn't would name getting all of these determinations in other contexts that sort of analogized to the immigration context and that wasn't something immigration court to really necessarily heavily involved in in two thousand and two or three or when ever so i don't know he maybe it could have been right store only here but sort of seem to have been fog the level of creativity an admission if they can show that the enforcing the admission would produce an unjust result what's your best argument against remain ending this case to the board to is me mr mr ganns velazquez recognizes that there's an exception to finality whether they phrase it in those terms or not so when we get finality not that immigration matters seem to ever be final the way they run it but putting that aside for just a second in this particular case aside from finality why wouldn't this go back to determine which side of the divisibility line this this prior crime falls on what's wh respect to the issues that were right looking only at mr and not his lawyers what's the interest of the united states and not having him have an opportunity to have this issue considered in the immigration proceedings canada what is your position counsel here so it's clear that he may not now return to canada under canadian law and they're for that defense should not be used in this case what is your response to that canada what will happen judicial notice of it i have no idea what canadian law is about this should we have it briefed is it significant but that doesn't make sense doesn't make sense in my case in which he cannot return to the landed country i mean the whole purpose of it is that he can go back to where he was before rather than stay in the united states but if that's not possible does it make sense to apply some rule that can and when it can't happen right concern in this case about what the law can give if if the man cannot return to castro as a lower curfew it seems to me we ought to  week of today's date well we will be expecting something from the united states within seven days and if the united states so when it looks not to submit anything we'll try to muddle through with that your submission from admission your honor such that from admission if he can show the result it would result in an unjust and unjust result and in this case it would result in unjust us because we are allowing this person to be removed to a country that he is not allowed to return to and eventually return to iraq that's the unjust result and also he would be the law is clear on that that if we don't allow him to do that for the rest of his life he's going to be going to have an order removal order of removal and withholding they can still send him back to the country if the country conditions improve at all  viable he said something about viable legal argument about changing the law don't need to we don't need to show ineffective assistance of counsel your honor all we have to show is the result would become unjust and in this case we have done that and i think you are now i do out of time yes your honor we thank you both very much for your argument and will consider the case carefully thank you