i'm not sure that was pretty much up to the government to was not the reason the i j a the immigration judge gave for not considering the application for a waiver and it was really set up to be the same basis and based on the prior removal and the issue was well can i consider an application for a waiver and the answer is given by the i g at the time no i can't because of the crime moral turpitude it's also disqualified over here and there's no getting around that one so it was it was that the cutting it short that caused the immigration judge to move the moral t question or confirm that you have it yet is there any precludes you at this point from filing a motion to reopen with the i a e a or seeking the government's stipulation for such a motion there would be no there would be nothing stopping us from filing the motion your honor except that we would is that i understand the logic of saying look at you we deserve a do over because the conviction that caused my removal doesn't exist anymore sort of an issue with ordinarily that application goes to whoever it was that had the removal order that's not us along that road you tell us the government will not stipulate to a motion to reopen as a result the petitioner has no automatic right to a motion to reopen can't be sure the agency will pick the question up so i think there's a gap here i mean it seems to me there's something wrong with a system that your position is being it's too late but the problem is the california court didn't satisfy that conviction granted i have an issue of until two thousand and six so what exactly was officially just you're supposed to do to submit a timely motion to reopen if the california court didn't act or seven years he didn't have all of oftens and that's the problem we have today the one option that seems to be available is to send it back to the agency which which is what i think i hear you advocating except that the government's not prepared to join in opening the door for the ages to take again while that's true and that's because the governments of the position that there needs to be some sort of finality and that petition or if even if it's approved ality based upon something that should move occurred in the first  are i can i i don't know exactly what the problem here we don't know we don't know whether the reason this conviction was vacated because the district the superior court became convinced that the charges were trumped up or based on false negatives or based upon improper evidence or based upon improper advice of counsel we just don't know why i and we're supposed to adhere to the agency's reasons for decision not to speculate as to what the agency might do and you're asking us to speculate as to what the agency might do because you're saying there's still another reason for his removal the agency hasn't acted on that question isn't that a question that belongs before the agency i don't look at you for your question but when you argue i understand this system it is separate crime he shouldn't have come back when he did and that made by it's be by itself grounds under the immigration statute to order his removal but that order hasn't been made by the agency he agency is based its removal orders on something else i think i think retro order move on this underlying petition for review is based on the charges being found present in the united states without it was one of the charges with the