is a pleasure to be here your honors and good morning to you may have pleased the court what i would like to address is whatever issue the court feels i mean you'd expounding upon it we have to go right to that issue opening brief in court as that defendant was similarly situated actually as she was appealing a final order of deportation and at that particular individual  and he too also had many equities in terms of a family that was here us one children he was a homeowner and he had a long term employment history in california say really wasn't much but this is pretty serious well your honor in this particular case he was sentenced to four years he did serve his time and he did enter into that plea apply to him and he is then of course not making a knowing involuntary considered intelligent waiver of appeal and next thing you know the order of removal is ordered and he is deported and taken from his family banished from this country all of his family all of his family ties and banished to mexico a place that he hadn't known since he was a teenager and told to start over was under fourteen but that there had been a party and that my client had had something to drink at the party and then there were a number of people crashed out in a garage or a pool sleeping child the child in the particular case was not aware that anything had occurred my client was confronted by the people involved by the parents and he was arrested and he cooperated you're bringing a collateral challenge to his deportation based upon the failure of the i j a fully to advise him as to his appeal rights that's  me give me difficulties in getting to the court of question assuming that it would be a violation of equal protection for him not to be allowed some shot at two twelve c which may or may not be true but assuming that's true that's not the question directly presented as the question really is whether that i j should have foreseen something like corners for quite a few years before court us showed up or is that not the question well i think anticipated court before quarter showed up and i think anticipated there retroactivity issue as they would also have to address and believe that even the court also found the i found the retroactive application of three twenty one to be lawful and not a violation of due process of believe that case was wrongfully decided indeed very short on analysis and it was the wrong direction for determination that that penal code section i think it was to explore the six point seven or something about the annoying and molest statute was being in it was a misdemeanor was to be considered an aggravated felony and the court found you know that that was an error and that he would have had a plausible legal challenge to that definition based on statutory construction and troop rotation and so therefore the court here they also no point of lawyer and in this case there wasn't a lawyer present in this case there was a translator translating and a review of the record we did indicate that my client participated very minimally a lot of the conversation took  and then a waiver of those right the crimes are doing very grave offenses second very differently ira section three twenty one also lower the sentence length criterion on preexisting categories of aggravated harshly but holding only applies to those who became aggravated calories because congress lowered the bar on the preexisting categories of crimes so that it's carbon the say that the the p moral turpitude that lack the certainty we desire this and then in six to remedy this problem by making clear that our society will not tolerate crimes against women and children it is not too much that we insist that we treat crimes against women and children as seriously as we do other offenses and that is that one hundred forty two congressional record as four zero five eight  protection here unlike in corners we have different treatment for different crimes not differential treatment with people people who have the same category of crime with the added serious perversity of  rather just briefly and would indicate that there is no case law that would make that distinction that the government is attempting to make between in the equal protection argument under court is that there's some distinction to be made between those that had the sentence reduction versus the newly listed aggravated felony categories instead there is simply still just the argument that by virtue of timing timing only that these people that were not to portable and not have provided fallon's all of the sudden found themselves reclassified with no relief whatsoever and treated differently