case by saying the government's right i've never really are those words before but let me explain the reasons why they're right on some points but not complete in the entire argument it is true the petitioner did not focus on pursue the naturalization citizenship to gain a claim before the agency and before the court it's true that he did not argue that his immigration convictions i'm sorry his convictions in this criminal record were not valid for immigration purposes it all stems back to one immigration hearing before judge the martin i have appeared before judge a mars hill on several occasions when he was with the los angeles immigration court i'm not going to stand here and say that he was belligerent and responded that he acted in some way that was inappropriate looked like he asked repeatedly whether mr is trying to wanted a lawyer and he kept saying no i don't and i'm not really sure what else the judge could have done the what is  issue is a significant interference with the right of counsel not technically what a significant interference but the right to be interfered when he keeps a volunteer and to give mr serrano the chance to make further efforts to obtain counsel there's no right to have counsel appointed for you in immigration receiving that is correct but there is a regulation that indicates that they were gratian judge must advise the individual of the immigration process as well as the right to counsel once the immigration judge learns the fact that the person is not represented he must advise the individual whether or not he wants counsel and right then and there the regulations indicate that it's a requirement that they responded must answer yes or no judge that point i think it actually judge marshall was trying to assist the respond at that point and try to resolve the naturalization claim because had he found that he was a u s citizen he would have terminated proceedings or at least released him a bottle but that is still a tell him answer the question that's not the asking him asking you only after he discovered that he was not a united states citizen this is an individual poor poor had europe's thought he was a u s citizen through his interactions with immigration officials at that point but that the problem is that's a legal question actually and i haven't seen anything in the briefs to make me think that the government was incorrect that he didn't happen to fit the category of citizenship that he thought because his father doesn't naturalized until examplar eighteen and i certainly don't see coersion to proceed without a lawyer the judge gives him actually a pretty big description of what that will entail he says if you wish to represent yourself that you're right to do so and he goes on and talks about all the things that will go on i can't believe mr estrada couldn't have said i would like to rethink you know i'd like to have a lawyer and i also recall that the judge even that's a point where he's talking about returning to mexico says you need more time to think about asylum i've seen up worse things with immigration judges than this and there's some harmless error concept two even if he didn't exactly utter the right words judge when the immigration judge offers him that opportunity at the end to pursue an application for asylum at that point he already admitted issue that was presented to the agency as well so the court but what what would it be i thought the government introduced the convictions right there i mean i certainly understand if you were citizen this is all different that that i don't see in this record and i don't see how we could once he's not a citizen sale to qualify as an aggravated felony responded at that point defense the action in terms of raising the issue of whether or not adjusting the status is falls within the good morning may please the court rebecca hoffer philipson behalf of the united states attorney general i can certainly pick up where he left off and basically there was no violation of the statute regulations regarding the offering time to get counsel in this case this court has found that the statute and regulations provide all the quote due process to which an alien is entitled  his sole argument that he specifically stated in his brief was that he was denied the opportunity to get counsel so that was the argument that he set forth and your honour's that's why i have set up my response brief in the manner i did because there was no denial of any opportunity in that regard as you can see from the transcript the judge was very careful about that i saw that they do specifically went back i understand he went he's complaining that the right then and there he didn't get a response immediately because when he was asked do you want time to find counsel the petitioner said what i want to know right now is why they told me i was a citizen and so he kind of was a little bit demanding in that regard and wanted to know what's going on here and the immigration judge took the time to try to work through that a little bit so there is this somewhat exchange where the judge says do you want me to continue your case to give you more time to get a lawyer then he says no ok fair enough then the judge do you wish then to represent yourself and then he then said little equivocal this is yes i mean what other choices do i have and the judge then says i'm willing to continue now this list i take it is kept at the immigration court of people who are willing to do this probe oh no his money is a big issue for a lot of right and he was given a list of the pro bono attorneys and in fact he said he had and i'm quoting again already he had already contacted them and one  removable on four different bases he's no stranger to this idea of counsel and reaching out to a counsel and a proceeding and i understand of course that immigration proceedings are different than criminal proceedings and very distinct ways but the idea of going to find counsel and representation is one that easily translates the other thing to remember is that his proceedings were conducted in english and that's critical because i think it doesn't even speak spanish to that was the impression that was given on the record he specifically wanted the proceedings in english and so sometimes you could say well maybe someone didn't fully understand i wasn't in their native language here that's not the case so i think that those are important things to attorneys given a list of the juries that's what the record reflects that there is i have to be honest i have not been to the immigration court to see exactly what this list might look like but i understand it's a pretty standard  list and it was reflected in the record that that is what was given to you know of of of avail right counsel willing to make their services available so that and he confirms on the record that he did receive it and that he did contact there or that he made whatever attempts he wanted to contact in that regard so that's what's made clear on the record so from that standpoint the statute and regulation were fully complied with because that is as as you pointed out it's not that we're required to provide the counsel at no expense a so he has to take it upon himself to do that so knowing that the statute and regulation were complied with  there doesn't seem to be any violation of that opportunity to get counsel and yet something now i know he has not released is my understanding from his brief that he has not carried forward to us any argument about citizenship it's a strange statute relying on one parent in some circumstances of both parents and other circumstances and when i think of it in light of constitutional concerns the supreme court  about these things it makes me wonder whether there's been any litigation anywhere in the country over the validity of this system you mean in terms of  arrangement has been litigated and where i think the most recent litigation for example has to do with maybe some equal protection challenges in terms of what i would expect to get right in terms of you know i think it was mostly because you go through the mother and a lot of petitioners were complaining that the father should have the same for example three zero nine c is born out of wedlock you get citizenship if you're born out of wedlock and if you can show one year of physical presence by the mother then you can and as long as she wasn't married to the father at the time of the birth of the child you can acquire citizenship in that regard and there has been some you know types of equal protection challenges going on in terms of why doesn't the father enjoy the same you know lesser physical presence showing i mean it's kind of going off on a tangent i want to make clear that nothing was raised here and that's why the government did not go into any of the citizenship claim because what he presented was basically i thought it was a citizen and then he was told well here's why you're not based on what you're telling us and it was dropped it was dropped completely on appeal to the board and i understand that citizenship claims do not have to be exhausted in that regard but to this very minute we haven't seen anything coming in as a claim to citizenship in that rick art so the government did not address any of that and has not asked for any transfer or anything because we don't see any genuine issue of material fact because of what we know the facts to be regarding what the statute requires in his testimony so but it is and on the issue of the lack of exhaustion that's why the government is also asking the court not to address  know or say that it doesn't need to address this question of adjustment of status as an admission because it wasn't really addressed that he first of all he didn't challenge specifically two of the bases that were used for it he was charged with four different bases of removal and the board specifically found in its decision that two of them were in a trust and so the court can find an exhaustion principles alone and then when you couple that with sort of a waiver idea that the brief does not really challenge the board's finding in that regard to attack the board's finding of the lack of exhaustion or meaningfully dispute how the board disposed of the claims there's also a jurisdictional issue there as well and so it's the government's position that the court doesn't need to reach the the admission question and the court can decide it on the basis of exhaustion a waiver however if the court wants to reach the admission issue the board did decide on the merits and in the context of the aggravated felony specific ground of removal which is why our briefs arguments were limited to that even though the same general language does appear in all of the provisions under which he was charged with so i want to get to that to that question this court has two decisions that are worth looking at abdel kadar and we must llosa and and i think unfortunately my opposing counsel has not in his brief recognised that where you see the adjustment status of rattus as an admission matters and contacts this court has said context matters and that's the key here because  when this court decided a bell kadar in these c m t contacts there was different language very specific and that statute with respect to the date of the admission making it seem as though there's one admission and then you're sort of cherry picking and  situation where an alien has to admissions because he entered and then later adjusted here it's after any admissions so the language itself is just readily distinguishable this is a matter of gross us which has more recently been affirmed in ch and the board also issued matter of course are all addressing the idea of adjustment of status as an admission in different contexts and no court has found against matter of rose us and that is going on decades of this idea that people who yes your honor and so it's been twenty years and we've been operating under the system and to say after twenty years wait a second the whole system's messed up it's a little bit counter intuitive and it's happened it's made certainly but here it leads to absurd results and i think that's the key because that's how the courts have avoided this issue they have found that it's basically absurd that it's you are you know therefore not subject to any of the provisions basically an l p r would have to leave the country and try to come back in order to ever be charged and commit as many crimes as they want to sag fell's and not ever be subject to remove ability it leads to an absurd result i see that my time is expired unless the court has any further questions the government will rest on its brief thank to the issue of whether or not the respondent had contact with other immigration attorneys we know that it was actually impossible for him to have contacted immigration attorney regarding the entire matter of this case and the reason why  with anybody on the day of the hearing but all he had to do was say yes your honor i'd like a little more time and it sounds like he would have had that opportunity easily and the your daughter had raised an interesting point which is the transcript  reveal essentially that he had this going through the motions at that point he was devastated at the fact that he's not a citizen that states in the transcript reveal it even at the end that he's still still trying to reel that that possibility even after the judge interest his decision that he's a removable from the united states he goes back on the record and discusses the citizenship claim even further the but just government you haven't preserved anything about the citizenship you know judge and and i mean i'm sure hearings are upsetting for people in general but he does have the chance to get give himself a little time to think if he had taken the judge's invitation only after he's been informed that his don't need defense that he recognizes that he has is in fact been destroyed has been disposed of and that result it only comes as a technical violation of the regulations which require him had to have responded to the immigration judges question as to whether or not he wanted an attorney at that point in time they were patient judge we can't get around this one think an attorney really i mean i'm still baffled what do you think an attorney could have done for him where's the prejudice becomes for the fact that the aggravated felony provision is the only issue in the case that prevents him from receiving or even at least applying for an application really i mean only the provision of the aggregate felony that he has to try to defeat and in that regard any immigration attorney would have realized that there are countless decisions that have been criticizing the board's interpretation of whether or not the statute  congress cannot contemplate the consequences all the consequences of it's an act but that doesn't excuse the judicial system from actually given the fact to those same words it is what it is in terms of the pla attorney would pick up in fact that there exists multiple case law that indicates that justice status is not in fact an admission to the united states would have then argued to the immigration judge that he's not and i'm going to tell it because it had a family could only people who've been properly admitted and that's i think your record i think actually the the the case law opens up that possibility for circuit's decision actually indicates we're not express an opinion as to whether or not the aggravated felony provision is in fact in the mission under one away thirteen so it actually left open that possibility to for an argument it was right for discussion and an argument for the immigration judge the absurd results the only case law that is in actually agree what process is accomplished on the ninth circuit it's  five paragraphs decision one sentence actually indicates the analysis which is essentially that there's a loophole that the petition did explain the loophole situation as to why there would be a difference of treatment between the l p r as and under p r s if you were if you were simply rely on the