voluntarily depart the country of work but i think the problem with the government's argument can be illustrated by someone extreme example let's say that the immigration judge had said to him mr gonzales you can ignore everything i'm going to tell you right now and then went on to give him those consequences i think we'd all ok i you know i'm going to be candid with you i don't think that's a very i think that's kind of a loser argument for you i think your strongest arguments the i a c yeah well i mean we when we started this go to the i agree with that except for the fact that the immigration judge actually reinforced the image of the ineffective assistance of counsel in that she first of all when at the at the second hearing before her the lawyer would have had to do is say hey can i have a continuance for two years to get an expansion but since we moved so quickly in our system of justice that you know probably now he's had time to he's had time to get expunged you anything in his brief number two i started doesn't apply because for the holding of a sarky to apply the motion to reopen it would have had to have been timely filed and it wasn't timely filed in this case and  that the requirement is is in is our day and it's clarified in judge reinhart's opinion in a subsequent case for also versus gonzales which is there were twenty nine have a third eleven ninety five with respect to the ineffective assistance of counsel that really kind of goes hand in hand with the jurisdictional argument i just want to safe the one counsel was beginning his jurisdictional argument he would seem to be referring to you seem to be making an argument that wasn't in his brief so he will when he gets up here and make that argument i just want to advise the court that we would certainly if this argument was made in the brief we would certainly be requesting leave to to respond to it once we get back to washington and have time to digest it but in any event the question is whether a combination of two state statutes washington statute nine point nine four eight point six thirty seven which at relevant times was denominated nine point nine four eight point two twenty but substance hasn't changed charge pursuant to nine point four eight point six three seven and nine point nine four eighty six point six b point three three six point three seven provides that a convicted felon can if he if he satisfie is not a finding of rehabilitation so it's not a rehabilitative statute that's number one lou have also requires that i don't excuse make that incident wasn't it wasn't there nothing here well there is no evidence the where the governor got that assertion whether or not it was in the pendant or whether i was simply based upon the application which may or may not have been accurate we do know that he was convicted of a statute the statute was possession with intent to manufacture were the little that's not simple possession and i you know i'm not saying that he wasn't convicted of simple possession i'm saying that there's no evidence which would  probation he actually got a period of super twenty eight i think twenty eight months or twenty four month period of supervision but again that doesn't establish that he only had only was convicted of simple possession plus another with state well i believe lou hand involved the states of idaho in arizona and the court found that the expungement under those statutes were the equivalent of the result of the federal courts prendre act and that they did in fact remove the immigration a state rehabilitative statute because the washington statute says in a vice language that it's not a rehabilitate it's not a finding of rehabilitation and because it was only a partial basement it did not expunge everything that the conviction can has run out but that gets rid of any possible prejudice he could have suffered arm and even if it was attorneys with mr of them but they couldn't have because attorneys i mean he received this it's been a couple years and i talked to the head lawyer for the for the immigration service downtown the answer was that at this bar the lawyer is better than the lawyer so that's what i got  this case and there is no evidence of in effect of system counsel he certainly didn't tell this individual to to not to voluntarily depart on time nobody proper expungement so that that's not an issue before the court at all and beyond that the government didn't raise that issue in its reply brief so it's never been be it's not properly before the court you know if the court do case because of the ineffective assistance of counsel then the government could certainly make that argument before the agency but you know it's not a proper argument to make before the court at this point but beyond that you know this that the substance of the argument is incorrect and that it is it possible and i guess what if the possible that a state does not have a statute that would satisfy them but i guess it could be possible but i don't thing it's i don't think that's the case with washington but what you're saying