gauntlet in front of the jury and take his chances he certainly cannot claim that he relied on the availability of two twelve c relief as can a person who plat and  and we've got a lot of preston yes and doesn't make any difference even those that have been granted haven't been followed and we've said it's no problem well your honor i mean look at our and not necessarily against others if that to the extent that that it's a titian or a defendant in the criminal context is subject to removal based on aggravated felony grounds speaks to and as i recall of step in which i confess i haven't read it recently because i lived the first time it had more to do with the fact that congress changed wasn't to expand the definition of aggravated felonies the aggravated felony removal was barred by the j rad but rather whether congress had added a different additional ground for removal which the j rad never spoke to in the first place because it wasn't around at the let me see if i can help you a little bit here you have your copy of of easy in with you know you know ok well i'm looking at four no two of three fifty nine f s third  found at page eleven fifty seven the following language it is therefore unavailing to argue as he in the us that congress might not have considered the fact that the one hundred ninety amendments would ren subsequently decide to make a retroactive change in the law it can in athens overrule the j rad that was issued it doesn't mean that it was invalid when it was issued it situation on where well i guess the problem that i have is yeah it doesn't exactly fit the situation but your argument is that it did fit the situation and if it weren't for the government's argument they would have got one and therefore because they didn't get one they ought to be he ought to have some rights that we you want us to give him and all the argument is assigned or stood up and i tried hear from language that's correct so if we say that if if the judge hadn't been so informed ajay rather would have been issued that becomes for me the question ok if there's a general ad that is issued would it two people this case just is very similar in that regard and that even if the j rad had issues congress then in ninety six were few rads no longer being apply need a new grounds of new specific reference to the one that talks about j random flipping through and i've lost my little tab so i'll just do it from memory is expressed in terms of a specific defined existing grounds and particular what constitutes an aggravated felony and the question this case poses for me is whether there's a difference between if with regard to  where congress has added something entirely new such as the firearm provision and what congress has has taken with the definition of aggravated felony so quite something new into the existing category to which  would be in jail as were effective against that category now they're expanding that category and in my mind there are arguably is a distinction between congress's expansion of grounds and remove the ability by adding something entirely new i e firearm reconcile and i just now we're not bound by it and we should critically examine when or nguyen or whatever it's called but if you follow that i started thinking what can this be reconciled with of separation and that's where i came up with a little hybrid i described a second ago about well maybe there's a difference between adding a whole new category such as the explosives and firearms and broadening the definition of aggravated felony i think it sounds like the position you're really taking is less trying to ponder here there always was the portability for great right that that was considered both an aggravated felony and a sexual offense which was a ground for deportation but then congress decided that all sexual offenses which included in this instance sexual abuse of a minor which was only punishable by thirty day jail term which before had not been considered an aggravated felony with record so what i mean is there a substantive distinction between expanding the category to include all sex offenses when some sex offenses were included before and adding a new category of explosives and firearms which i assume had never been around before certainly certain firearms offenses were  the government that it's not necessary it's makes it hard for me to close my eyes to the fact that jeannie if the government doesn't speak up if it's issued and if it hasn't affected a should we disregard it you know in this case it was the sentencing judge you actually know i actually relied upon the statement of the government this is one of you heard the last argument but i was quizzical there is to whether it really made any difference here it's pretty plain that the judge is going to issue it but for this and that's why i'm i'm willing to continue the examination say ok suppose there is a j rad there which would have been there otherwise does it have an effect today against whatever he's been  east portland imaging center fisi versus providence health system o