and the question before the court is whether mr parr hons motion for certificate appeal will present questions that are reasonably debatable the question presented here plainly are we know that because the government urges this court to rule on grounds of the possible adverse immigration consequences of a guilty plea is objectively unreasonable it is at the very least reasonable judges can debate the point the supreme court in pedy i made clear that as of the time of mr far an established consensus that criminal defense lawyers had it duty to apprise their clients of possible adverse immigration consequences of a plea in previous case that was limited to deportation but for naturalized citizens like mr farrer one deportation is among the consequences want to use the natural lives and for that reason competent trial counsel are required to apprise clients whom they know to be naturalized citizens that the naturalization and resultant deportation are among the consequences that this certainly i mean the court describes it in various ways one of the things they talk about is a universe of adverse immigration consequences their automatic importation was triggered by the particular fence for which mr was to approve it does your honor and i think that goes to the collateral versus direct consequence but the reason that the government has brought in the naturalization proceeding here i mean st to go to the question and but the a and the d of the court said that number one they never have considered the supreme court has never considered the collateral direct distinction for purposes of a strickland analysis and number two given the uniquely severe nature of deportation the collateral could direct not prepared to apply the direct collateral distinction when you're dealing with deportation now this court has applied the distinction in other contexts where the civil consequences of a criminal conviction are more attenuated either by process or they're just less severe such as civil commitment which was at issue in young's but the court made clear idea that deportation and so perforce the naturalization are a particular type of consequence and the collateral directive thinks it just doesn't it doesn't  saying that because he says of the seriousness of the consequence we shouldn't pay attention to the director literal distinction but if we were to would you agree that this is a collateral coats of words i wouldn't bring in the way the government describes collateral consequences for court to strip a citizen who is subject to a civil the naturalization proceedings of his citizenship once the predicates are established and he or the government is seeking to establish the factual predicates or list aapl from the fact that this criminal conviction so i don't think that the fact that the government needs to initiate a separate proceeding in order to deem naturalized a naturalized citizen is dispositive direct collateral the consequences here are serious they follow directly and well i wouldn't have made a difference if yes i would dispute that that's exactly what the recording say but i i take your point and i apologize for interrupting ok well just so just give me a quick answer what would have made render affective assistance of counsel to defense attorney who is aware only of the fact that his client is a naturalized u s citizen and nothing more not provide a program to advice about civil do naturalization in connection with a guilty actualization exposure mr harding does not contend that he spoke with his attorney about the naturalization process itself that they spoke about a month i mean that you know the opposing counsel just said that he was aware that he was a naturalized citizen and if he committed fraud when becoming naturalized meaning he said that he didn't need to look on that when he had i mean wouldn't it would anybody realize that that's a basis for you  your honor the only fact in the record is that he was aware that the citizenship was obtained through naturalization and to be clear mr parr hand was already a naturalized citizen by the time the criminal case began and if it one hundred presentation began there was no and so you know you can i don't think you could say that your your attorney was was ignorant of the facts are facts are pretty well pretty pretty there are there if not directly by my obvious implication when you i'm not sure i agree with your honor st of all i'm not sure that the record would reflect that mr far hands attorney was a bodies of when the naturalization process occurred and just there to to to use a hypothetical if it were the case that mr parr hand were naturalized completed that process before the criminal conduct occurred and i don't dispute that obviously the attorney was aware when the criminal conduct occurred but if an accusation happened before that will conduct occurred and this issue would not arise i i would disagree that that is a correct reading of the dia the the lodestar into dia is not the severity or the subjective importance of the consequence to the defendant it is whether the consequence according company and merely an automatic result for a broad category of non citizen offenders that intimately rydal related to the criminal process and for deportation of non citizens that applies because th misrepresentation or dishonesty during the naturalization process or it is isn't it always a question in the natural creation process whether someone has committed criminal conduct and so engaging in criminal  his point that there can be litigation and actual dispute about that my point is that that evidence existed before the bringing of the criminal a criminal case and before it also has to be another issue the other issue is whether or not there was you might have r i think the point here is that unlike the deportation context with the actual entry the guilty plea is what matters and but for the guilty plea deportation would not trigger the same as not  naturalization that is to say the grounds for the naturalization would exist without a criminal case granted you naturalization would exist if mr farhang went to trial and were acquitted or if the government negotiated a different under unlike the deportation context this is not a context where advice about the collateral consequences is such that it would reasonably affect the defendant's decision whether or not to plead guilty question is just that the nd circuit has not said that lawyer does not have the obligation to advise a naturalized citizen of the possible consequence of the naturalization you haven't said one where the other whether that's another  zheng if there's no more questions for my colleagues the motion will be submitted we're going to hear argument