after the issue was addressed to first proceedings we think that it's evident in light of the recent bravo put rosa case and second in any event that with respect to the decision made by the immigration judge and  the board of immigration feels there are legal errors in this in the decision in particular with respect to the legal concept of rehabilitation and to support has jurisdictions would review the decision with respect to the application of that term we have all the patients first of all with respect to reste judicata which of course generally stands for the principle that a person will not be prosecuted again a  second time on the basis of conduct that was addressed in the first round of the first prosecution of the bravo play grows the case indicates that that courts assume that congress will legislate with the understanding that this principle race judicata applies in other words the government will not bring a second case on the basis of the same evidence that was available for the first time around what and what about when there's been a change in the the new definition to apply retroactively ok any case profit after that that's that's correct the death of the term aggravated the new definition of court aggravated felony fact that that definition applies retroactively doesn't necessarily mean that congress intended for the immigration service to go back and reopen old cases and apply that new definition to those actions that were already taken in fact if you definition of aggravated felony and how how far does it apply there also procedural provisions new rules for for how the court haitian proceeding should be handled and you issue a notice to appear new rules about going to determine that is by looking at whether testimony is consistent and that's just completed so so in other words what the judge is saying is the only way that this person can show rehabilitation is by testifying consistently with the that's what he did then your case is over that's it that would be wrong on that is legally incorrect because the board has standards as to how you have you know how well they make it clear in their prior precedent that you can look a person can establish we have billick nation even if he claims innocence what you have to look at are that you know whether his expressions of remorse you have to look at his could convert you know whether there's a period of conduct how long that just lost on that second notice to appear and turns around a couple of days later and lodges the third notice to appear based on evidence they could have brought during those second proceedings here we have one order to show cause prior to  originally charged with a crime involving moral turpitude but at the time that ground required that the commission of the offense be within five years of entry and result in a prison sentence of a year or longer neither of which applied significant change in the law there is a significant change in the law and that and you just could not have at the time he was in truly i think that it's important to view the immigration judges comments in this case in the context of the larger decision the decision on sheikh also used is twelve pages long he goes through all of the factors he at the outset and what i think what the immigration judge was doing in this case wasn't announcing a new standard by the time he then moved through all that testimony to the end what he was doing was saying your crime was so serious or you did was so serious i consider rehabilitation to be a major factor in the balancing of  precedent or refused to consider certain evidence that was presented or would not allow the immigrants or bring in the witnesses or something like that you would agree that you know the extent he  how i do it in my court and that's almost math that's not what happened here the immigration judge clearly considered all the positive equity of knowledge this was a very close case a very difficult case and i think ultimately simply determined that