yes that's correct on everything usually we do make the argument and not conceding that today that under probably surviving mendoza lopez prejudice is simply that the right you are the deprivation of the rights of a judicial review now just simply go right into addressing unusual or outstanding act with the standard arguably mr roboto who had a prior conviction for attempted robbery i believe to disorderly conduct convictions as well as a dui arguably had engaged in a pattern of criminal history in this court did not then apply pattern of criminal history your client has a drug trafficking conviction is that right no it's not well if he was convicted of eleven three fifty one but we are arguing that essentially that is not an aggravated felony nor a drug trafficking conviction that government enormous power i'm sorry might be an ordinary family it would be an ordinary felony but whether it's an aggravated felony in a drug trafficking offense is another question in which the government has to present evidence and go through the court has to engage in a these people saying that his absence from the scene would constitute any kind of a hardship at all well i believe the documentation from both his mother and father state that every summer what about what about the wife and the children anything from them you know but i think the problem is here we're being asked to recreate something eight years later and obviously the wife and the children probably weren't happy about mr videos deportation they have any income for two years up until the deportation he was incarcerated at that time and that's what led to his deportation factors first of all he had a residency of twenty five years and in matter of edwards the court stated that when someone comes here at a very young age and has lengthy residency that's an tenderized level of an unusual or outstanding equity attractor o factor number two he worked at the close racing renewal center and there's a letter in the record basically working to bring violence and gang violence to an end so we had community involvement he also was a member of the soul of that community church his entire family resided in the united states and the declarations were submitted to the court he had three children at the time academic or chasing a fourth child all of which were united states citizens the immigration court and in really catalina aragon found that her two minor children in her lengthy residency of twenty two years were in fact enough to get her to twelve c relief so all of these factors combined that rises to the level of a plausible showing now the guy arment never in their breed showed any evidence that an immigration judge would not have granted re or any statistical evidence that mr ruggiero might not apply that we've been granted believe it's all it is is plausible not whether he actually would have been granted relief and there's more than enough facts in the record to show that he did have plausible grounds one of the thing i would point out in terms of whether the standard would even apply is we talk about the drug offense and it does require a serious drug offense a finding that was never made by the district court nor argued by the government basically in the united states in el rainey an individual was convicted of delivering one hundred dollars worth of hashish arguably a drug trafficking offense and the court there found that in that he's the unusual or outstanding equity standard didn't apply so know that we would ask the court to reverse the conviction thank you this case and even if it is somewhat of a difficult exercise for the district court put itself in the position of the knowledge of the deportation hearing it happens all the time in our district and it would just not be it would make sense at all to ignore the controlling standard what we're saying is the standard is a possible grounds for relief but it has to be read in conjunction with this higher standard and i it sounds to me from what i heard in the last questioning the court understands that and there is more than one hook to get this heightened standard the drug trafficking conviction i know that the defense counsel almost impossible to the tailor categorical approach to this i don't know that that's necessarily the law when the v i i looks to what standard language of the corpses this standard is in the penalty triggered by generally three ways one of drug trafficking conviction to a particularly grave offense such as murder rape and three a pattern of criminal activity and as we point out themselves obviously a serious crime it goes to a threat against public safety and that's not even all of it in the ten years leading up to this deportation hearing this defendant it incredibly eight convictions plus one juvenile  question of who grant such relief would have been highly unreasonable of us by the way i mean i was here chance what sixty three or something  themselves that person had an autistic child very special needs this case i mean it's pretty much all weekend you promise to look at these equities i think it's unfortunate to say the least undocumented aliens committing crimes as soon as the deportation comes up a look i have three children three children working during their formative years in development he's in and out of prison where he has a hero would have it where the defense counsel was given three months to get testimony they lived in los angeles only two hours states the three united states citizen children community involvement with the church and with a community center all of those factors in itself do rise to plausible grounds thank you thank you very much