until this court of appeals to st to the board's interpretation of the brand x it remains the law of the circuit and we should go with that but i believe that even under the court's more narrow or standard in this vague but even then i believe as a criminal defendant he should be able to rely on this court's jurisprudence and in the criminal proceedings so we believe that in this case the montgomery ward analysis newness was well established precedents of this circuit and number two mystery as was presumed to have relied on that well set a precedent because in criminal proceedings this presumption is what the respondent asserts cordesman the night did not diminish the reasonableness of mysterious reliance interest in newness with respect to the two thousand and fourteen conviction this was not the type of case that presented an ongoing controversy pay was your your honor it's my understanding that unpublished decisions of the be should not be you know they should not be taken into account from my own experience advising people of the immigration consequences of their criminal convictions it was pretty well settled in the legal community based on newness that this crime would not lead to deportation from the united st i guess i'm struggling with how there could ever be an ongoing controversy if there was a published board decision that presumably gets deference from us under brand x but we overturned it there's no to the contrary and then the board effectively overturn them you don't like an ongoing controversy well you rather the thing is the general public is not aware of those unpublished decisions because a lot of it of those other published decisions were known as i mean what you'd be obligated tell your client you know since i'm aware of nunez i'm also where the fact that the board actually reason opposite conclusion of a vision that nunez overturned and the board very well could come back in a public decision well your honor i would advise my client that before there is any board decision comes i mean obviously if i was the attorney i would say off of the off the course with the nose decided i would not have i would have advised my client not to ple pleading guilty and we're looking at the consequences of the plea agreement by not looking at his actions so i think that's what the that's what the issue is that as long as there is clear well settled precedent in a court of thousand and eleven conviction because then there was no reliance you know then they would have been you know then nobody could say because what if he had been but if you have pleaded guilty to another crime involving moral turpitude and the government still used a two the two convictions that predated his admission no they did not and your honor i just want to point out there was eleven indecent exposure conviction before he adjusted in two thousand and nine and that was a misdemeanor  quarter jonathan ross for the united states good afternoon your honors i believe there's still some lingering questions from my colleagues portion of the argument but what i want to focus on initially is that this is a case about doing something that you have notice is a moral that you have notice will get you arrested multiple times that you have notice if you get convicted again will cause your removal and even with all of that exposure would be a c i m t and yet three short years later three sedated in fact his misconduct escalated and critically it was this nd conviction where his rule the ability became l in other words the agency's application of cortez medina is prospect if not not retroactive there was no unfair surprise here because he had a notice however even if my colleague is correct in this that is being applied retroactively unfortunately he's still for the reasons already identified by judge van dyke that still fails on its merit when the law changed and new year's which was the law of the land in this circuit was being considered by the board and the board issue cortez and enough they spoke very clearly that henceforward this specific statu that mysterious had one in charge prior and again the government's not pursuing remove ability based on those earlier charges however i still think it's worth noting to clean up the record by my count three indecent exposure charges it you know to your honor's point about st cyr and this raises ability to rely on the state of the law she was able to rely on it she received the benefit of that bargain if he went to an immigration attorney the board had issued unpublished case law on this circuit had rejected the analysis from the board based on two reasons only because of how brief the discussion was involving three thousand one  the the government's reasoning and why if i can just say it a different way than the twenty levin charge really isn't the the relevant period of inquiry here again because he wasn't facing any actual charges and so to with the nail in the coffin so to speak but they're just saying you know all the nails in the coffin matter though but you know all of a matter what is your answer to that that every every step you know in theory a rational actor at every s themselves maybe i better not they don't do this one because that will be the st domino of the two dominoes that need all thank you for thank you for explaining that and i hope that accurately describes what  was getting at and i think the response is very straightforward because in a situation where you are relying on each and every step you know it's still this is less as i said to be at the inception of this argument this is still a question about notice and a question about doing something that you know is wrong over and over again and knowing that you have consequences so regardless of whatever steps he took at that point in time he still knew at that point that that one has the realisation oh well i'm on thin ice right now i receive the benefit of the bargain that i made previously i'm i'm the government's not seeking to remove me from this felony conviction that i have however i know that if i do it again things are going to be very bad i'm going to face not only additional criminal charges well i'm going to face removal from this country as well fourteen cortez medina made that very clear and for that reason this is someone that should have been acting on their best behavior the united states government had afforded mr ray as in his life time multiple bites of the apple the benefit of the dow on multiple occasions well before your time expires let me world we live in today post or does medina world been independently alone because of the felony because it was a big enough because of what if that would have been enough to have him removed from that alone would that them it may change things for the sole reason that so much about how about this circuit case law about but on the is the extent to which one can rely on the circuit on the laws of this circuit and  who was saying was correct in that that the two thousand and eleven offense be in a balance and everything would be you know would fit into a category where you could be removed is based on the want to could the government go back now and see you have been removed that offense is after all and judgment i think that i think i do understand and if i if the court if i can just have the court's indulgence to to recite my understanding i think that the better way to look at it or perhaps another later in that situation yes that would be entirely different you know if you had these two charges right together during the time that new year's was the law of the circuit that would fundamentally change things so however things are different here where he was on reyes every benefit of the doubt over and over again but he kept making the same mistakes congress intended for non citizens who commit these types of serial crimes of moral turpitude to be improved and apply petitioner would have been removed of the from the united states because it crime involving mark erbitux within five years of someone's admission makes that person deportable so i would like to point out that in pleading in two thousand and eleven to indecent relying yes your honor i would say that because supreme court jurisprudence as well as discourse jurisprudence requires only a reasonable reliance is not required detrimental reliance as judge lester pointed out insincere supreme court and further more in case called for tell us worse is lynching two thousand and fifteen because when it comes to retroactively the court looks at whether it was reasonable now he met even if he was found guilty in two thousand and eleven yes your honor my my answer would still be the same that even if he lost by jury trial the reliance in the reliance interest is implicated because