that i have raised completely outside of everything else that has been going on is whether or not the attorney general has the right to case yeah yeah the ninth circuit case did not go into the definition of conviction as set out in section three to two and in one zero one a forty eight the immigration act  what was going to do i think your cases it said we define conviction only to encompass a plea bargain but the crucial thing and the reason i brought this language these two there you cannot put regulations in here defining the way they're going to interpret things clear and saying their convictions can be divided into half and that's what they've done and that's their position you know that's the way you get around prior legislation prior cases but that still doesn't help me with trying to distinguish the basis in st cyr for recognizing a distinction between the creation of a new disability on those people who may have entered into a plea agreement with an expectation that they would be eligible for relief and those who decided to run the gauntlet and take their chance with that and the supreme court said they're in a different position because they they can't point to an expectation that they would have tha question i'm really posing to you is one of congressional power under the constitution as i read st cyr what the supreme court reminded us is that congress has the power to make legislation retroactive under the see even if it has consequences that you might declare and i might believe to be unfair as long as the congress makes it expressively clear that that's what it intends to do and this situation where it is very clear that that is what congress intended why why doesn't why isn't there a distinction between people who play filthiest things are addressed and those here i thought i was helping you get to a bottom line i guess that wasn't i think what you want us to decide is that congress intended to exempt your your your client situation when thank you thank you were very different from what happened here if if the court looks at the record which i'm sure it has it is clear that in this particular case mr of health a state possible sentence of thirty years he had three counts each facing ten years on the record does not contain any evidence to establish that a plea bargain was offered giving him less than a five year sentence and in fact what the court did give him that following the jury trial was an eight year sentence it is very possible that mr upheld wouldn't have been eligible for two twelve c relief even as even if it remained after september thirtieth  controlling there is no reason to  incorrectly i didn't talk about cases where that question was not answered in st cyr as far as i can read about going to jury trial relying on the possible reliance on the fact well if i you see i'm doing here really doesn't assert that case and i do agree with you that it applies in this case i trying to understand the reasoning there and i don't see it in st cyr this correctly and show me where i might find it prohibited from relying on truth well steve relief and whether there has to be actual food reliance i e i knew about it that's why i went to jury trial anyway but i was counting on to twelve the relief or the fact that it factors that the alien had in his or her favor surely if a if an alien had been convicted by jury trial versus taking a plea that directions to reopen their right we can order them to exercise their discretion in one way or the other i understand there but they had at least would give us some hope that we could we fi application and the government has defenseless they could throw it in but you know i have to depend on the record that was filed before the administrative appeals bodies the trial courts the  big i don't want to go away and what i have to argue if the case is remanded i will argue it but i'm asking for a chance to argue it that's the only thing i'm asking and i and i keep coming back to the same thing