know that robert randy understood that so long as mr adam alley and receive less than one year he would not be deportable and we know that he communicated that understanding to the court both in an attachment to a sensing position paper and an open court at the sentencing hearing and we know that that understanding was wrong we also know that mister had serious concerns about the immigration consequences of contemplated a sentence of ten to sixteen and the trial attorney in this case no doubt advised his client correctly that district then district judge pires would likely follow that the plea deal and give him a sense of ten deported when in fact the plea agreement because it's a related to a sense of more loss of more than ten thousand dollars would be he would definitely be deported we know that this type of error affects the defendant's understanding of the consequences of  it affects his decision making process and i think it rodrigues vaguer i like the quote that from from a southern district of florida which is i get on a plane all the time knowing it might crash but if you tell me it's definitely going to crash i'm not getting on and likewise in this case yes mr adamantly and got on the plane knowing that there was a slight chance that judge pires would not follow the plea agreement and give a higher sentence but if he had been told this plea agreement actually because it stipulates to ten one thousand dollars loss is an aggravated felon he would not have accepted that plea agreement and this court has accepted that analysis in both quien and inwardly this vaguer neither one of those pleas were the type of plea that guaranteed the defendant would not be deported it each one of those cases the lawyer told their client you know it's a technical chance so you might get deported but you probably won't but the piece themselves did not guarantee non deportation you don't this is a little bit of an unusual case because your client consulted with another warrior in another case is holding this then you have the lawyer in this case that says basically you know much about this but it sounds right to him basically this is a little different right he in effect is relying on the st lawyer right that lawyer is not before the court he was before the court here does that affect our analysis in any way i don't think it should affect the analysis if he only relied on the other analysis in some way well in that i'm not in this matter though the reality is that this lawyer if i read the record correctly he did not pretend expertise he was relying on what i gather was mr becker told him and i think you so indicated did you not he said that at the sentencing hearing i have to say it was quite colloquial i mean i frequently say things like i know nothing about math but and that i said you know expose that i actually was a math major when i started college in this case what we know is that the conversations took place so this is not a case where we don't know whether anyone talks about immigration consequences after a change of plea itself the judge asked mr ramsey is your this is an unusual situation and i wonder how much that should affect our analysis in this case i don't think it's not unusual because immigration lawyers and criminal defense lawyers frequently consult with each other and in the case of u whether mr ramsey who advised his client did his research by looking it up in a book or by asking another expert in this mr becker exactly there's many ways to get it wrong but if you get it wrong and you advice your client wrong and then you also advise the court wrong so let's be clear this letter just you know there's no nothing was hidden here mr ramsey told the court this and the court relied on it and giving him a sentence of eleven months and if the sister is that enough so saying that was saying there had never been a direct communication between ramsey and your client about the immigration consequences it was only through back or somehow and then the st time really ramsey makes a direct statement to the court is that enough to meet what you mean to me i think it's possibly enough but i don't think you need to reach that issue because in this case is a very clear that the conversations did occur if the declaration says that your client's attorney told him but we don't because it just says attorney without a name it could be either one of them right i don't think so i think if you read that portion of the declaration clearly it that one is clearly this duranty whenever they talk about mr bakker they always say mr becker and again in this case we know that mr ramsey he's not sure about he thinks so what does this conversation look like if he hasn't told mr i've a one million here it's either i don't agree in which case he's made misrepresentations to the court and i don't think that we assume that he did  factual finding i believe it be whether it's illogical implausible or without support in terms of there's a conflict in the record mr otton mind says my lawyer told me and miss advised me however of the district court found in the opposite and looking at the to the as a movement to put forth specific articulable thoughts that show that he's entitled to relief and the record gives enough evidence for the district court for this court to permit issued what's finding i'd also like to point to mr baxter's declaration t mr ramsey my understanding period nothing about mr ramsey adopting that advice nothing about mr ramsey saying he would put that advice forth to mr automobile but he did then refer to that in court so why isn't the statement in court enough that he conferred with mr becker but that doesn't go to the advice that mr ramsey provided to petitioner before simply in the u s martini case i don't think counsel disputes that that petition was not entitled to fact of assistance of counsel from  here because it seems to me to undisputed that mr ramsey was the defendant's lawyer for this particular charge we know that becker expressed to serve you about the effect of the plea agreement to ramsi there's no indication that ramsey rejected that advice otherwise we would have heard about it at the plea colloquy and therefore it seems to me that it's pretty clear that ramsi as the criminal defendants lawyer we lied upon as the formation of his advice to a client among other things becker's comments now that may be ineffective it may be effective and you can talk about that but i think the key here is that ramsey was the one who gave the defendant the advice whether was based on his own independent legal research is no reason to think it did but would instead was based on better statement but it's still ramsey's responsibility so why isn't ramsey responsible if it really is ineffective question and that counsel chose to respond with an answer so as it is the government's position that in fact the defendant here didn't really rely on mr ramsey he was relying on mr becker so we will see the form of this advice from mr becker right and the chose not to do so and this is a court interpreted that way and speak given deference let's assume argue window that the way we read the declarations was that mr ramsey gave affirmative miss advice whatever he got it from a book or petitioners decoration is insufficient to stablish that ramsi firmly missed by some of the immigration consequences that there was no hearing or anything right that's just reading the paper records correct and is there any case that tells us that in a quorum nova situation where we're just reading a paper record we to raise detailed and specific facts which resolution requires information outside the record and here we don't believe the district court or refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing but what does that sorry i mean and that doesn't sound like it speaks to whether we view this as a fact finding in this context in court notice or not i haven't cited a case but i think in turning to prejudice as well your honor i'd like to turn to that for a moment that the clear factual findings unprejudiced the court made a credibility determination we think that as well  your ten petitioner submitted a death ration and the district court found the titian nurse allegation that if his lawyer had told him that he could be deported based on his guilty plea regardless of the sentence then he would not have pled guilty is simply not credible so and i want to distinguish the cases that petitioner brought up as well before before you get there this is on core members which is you know is the most rare most unusual appeal from your perspective the government's perspective is this properly i think based on the case law there is irreparable injury however there's issues regarding timing and ineffective assistance of counsel we don't challenge that at the district court level two prongs of the corn notice analysis so we believe  relied on his lawyer and the only person who was his lawyer in this federal criminal charge was mr ramsey why isn't that pretty strong evidence that he relied on ramsey and he didn't say paragraphs and then i'll point to the preexisting relationship that petitioner had with mr becker in a state criminal matter and then that he reached out st to mr becker so the court can speculate but then again point that the district court had ample evidence in the record to make the finding to see the decorations and other evidence in this case and again condition accepted a plea with near certainty that would have given his the deportation without the downward departure under his understanding of the law and the  one year higher would have a lot of salt in his deportation there's no your position is whoever has advice that was he knew that there was a chance of being deported yes if he was focusing on what it calls a factual finding by the district court but if you actually look at our mine there's no factual finding the court st has nothing in the record suggests that ramsey made any misrepresentations that's actually if it is a factual finding it's clearly an incorrect what about the credibility language that he just cited credibility languages with respect to the prejudice prong and on that problem it's a purely legal credibility finding the court said that anyone who would  credibility filing with respect to seeing witnesses and making a determination whether they were credible or not and i think that this court has as a matter of law help that it is credible that someone would accept a plea that did not guarantee  lawyer says more likely than not this plea will not rendered you deportable so that credibility filing is with respect to the prejudiced problem which i think this court in rodrigues to go was very clear that that's not the correct analysis the correct analysis isn't whether the cli that the person entered would guarantee donda portability it's what advice did that the lawyer give to the client and did that affect the framework in which he understood  this case the framework was you know more likely than not going to be deported based on this plea agreement when in fact the plea agreement by stipulating to a loss of ten thousand dollars more than ten thousand dollars guaranteed that it was an aggravated family can you speak for a moment of the declaration too because it seems you said before that this part of the declaration in becker but it seems like the declaration earlier names ramsey and backer and then suddenly switches to this so on page seventy five dollars seventy five cents paragraph a very it clearly states that it's mr ramsey that gave the advice mr ramsey later said that he had spoken to mr becker and he agreed that getting a sense of less than one year was going to be our strategy at the sentencing so that i would not be deported scase and mister was twenty one year old armenian christian refugee from iran the idea that he should be deported based on the drafting error of his  lawyer i think i think it's very unjust if you read the declaration is very clear that mr ramsey gave the advice furthermore you wrap it up and i just say one more thing you know  respect to the e r nine the judge made no finding what he said was even assuming petitioners allegations are true which we must do before we can  that he agreed with backers determination thank you very much appreciated thanks to both counsel the case just argued