activity that correct and in that's a position where they don't have to prove that there was a conviction correct correct all they have to prove is that he engaged in terrorist do not by their terms there's no clear congressional intent to apply that new ground for remove ability using the language of imac ninety immigration act one thousand nine hundred six there's no clear for retroactive effect of the statute my position today strongly and honestly is based on a reading of sincere and that's which is a pretty thorough indicate a clear congressional intent to apply the thesis for removal ability retroactively counsel and have trouble with that of a couple of us one is i have trouble reading the words any time after admission to mean anything other than any time before or after the statute is passed the second is on st cyr although it's discussed in terms of retro activity you have to ask retroactivity a while and see here is talking about retroactivity to a guilty plea basically thirty two years saying had he known it would result in these immigration consequences that the new act imposes he might not have pleaded guilty because any criminal defense lawyer and his client will carefully consider the effect of the guilty plea on deportation as the referee activity to watch is not the conduct in that it's the guilty plea now in this case we're not talking about a guilty plea we're talking about conduct and we have a case versus sancerre it says here doesn't even apply where the person did not plead guilty and also we have cases from other circuits that are not finding on us but they seem to square with common sense  he could have also been before did as so at the end of it i have trouble seeing why i think this year is applicable and i have trouble reading the statute in any way other than as retroactive of the conduct because of the conduct that doesn't require any conviction put to get back to the point i am not suggesting that score this specific holding  the the terrorism provision contained in twelve twenty seven do not apply i'm retroactively but the reason it applies and the lance got analysis applies you're saying you're saying we should look at it for  have a hard time reading the statute in the line of what congress was trying to accomplish and also just looking at the words i want to say that if you were engaged in terrorist activity last week no problem you can stay but if you  subject to remove all if within five years of entry they're convicted of the single crime of involving moral turpitude now do those provisions provide do they apply retroactively what's become important in this immigration and in the realm of immigration arguments and litigation is whether or not these sweeping provisions contained in the ira y the contrast in the language you start so i see your point judge graber and i understand but but my position is that there is no clear congressional intent to make that new ground for the portability deport him up until one thousand ninety nine and you understand that he wasn't a portable prior to that so the question is would congress is to make that provision applied after the current twenty thirty forty years ago and i and my answer is my argument to this court today is because if there was a clear expression of legislative intent and you seem to hear from guidance that's so the problem with record activity is that a person ought to have fair know this or what the law is so he can conduct himself in a in conformity with it and not be punished for things or suffer civil harms for things that work or miscible want to get them on the civil side retroactivity under land graph can be accomplished but it requires a clear indication of congressional purpose to make it retroactive now in this case it seems to me that that purpose of avoiding retro activity is is immaterial he already had plenty of notice that he wasn't supposed to go on of the german consulate and hold people look on point for most of the day and the chances that knowing that he was be portable if he did on top of being subject to being sent to prison for at were it was relatively trivial have relied on the language of the law and the language of this court in arguing that because courts narrowly construed specially imac and then you say on the language of the law argument i still don't really understand your answer to judge graver when i read those words has engaged or any time after admission engages it looks to me as though the time that i look at that i look at is i just don't see how else to read it and i know a church where you are asking the same thing and i guess i didn't understand your answer well i don't want to go in circles on my answer and i'm sorry i don't see why it's ambiguous in my reading of it it is ambiguous contrast to the numerous tell me how to read it to mean something else well it would mean that any time after entry any kind of for entry for person engages in terrorist activity subject to deportation retroactively to acts occurring before the effective date of the act terrorists deportable from the united states to apply it prior to the effective date of the act that's my argument also and i don't want to sum up your other government forward based on your argument if the first people who correct i understand york that's my arm thank you for having me can i just ask a quick question of sir are you still pro bono with his client yes you're doing this on your own yes if you applied to be appointed to this court for the purposes of this appeal no i haven't and the reason i asked that is you may not know this if you do that and i can't guarantee of the court will grant that if they did then you can apply to the clerk's office to reimburse  travel expenses did you understand that i didn't put but i will call the court it's up to you i appreciate that ok thank you just want you to know afternoon your honor my name is under mclaughlin i represent the responder's attorney general united states in this case also i'm going to get relative very swiftly to the issues that you've been discussing here with with opposing counsel i would love to talk about purely political offenses with this court since you all have a great deal of experience with that term of art in the extradition context all of you sat on the barrack and panel that was decided a couple of months ago so that you have have even greater background that i view on that form of art and that would be useful in that discussion if we ever got to what i just don't see from the way that the court said if you're that we're going to get there but let me set that aside for a moment now let me dress what the court of raised by petitioner are all associated with whether or not he's eligible for discretionary relief that is tied up with that with the issue that the court is saying wasn't decided  elow i have just a practical question do you ever have ever have periodic meetings with the people from the v a i am talking about emerging issues and that's one thing we do  in the world wouldn't they in this case have simply said the i j a found aggravated felony and participation in terrorist activity whatever we think about st cyr retroactivity case come up in front of this or what the board is moved in a cycle where they're trying to learn lessons from the court and at that point they thought that it would be better not to address an issue rather than to address it there i think they've moved away from that particularly enough that this case was actually decided by the board just days after tora merril so tore american sort of its way into the cannot tell yourself any times i have sat on panels where we get an appeal where the i j a finds remove ability on two grounds one of anything about the non reviewable issue it sounds to me like that's sort of shooting yourself in the foot deliberately it is a historical thing that the board has trouble looking forward to anticipate what issues might be raised on judicial review that aren't raised on appeal before i mean that the issue of whether or not this court was going to have jurisdiction was not an issue that was raised to get in the appeal so if it has little trouble focusing on that in which we attempt through our discussions with the board to that is also an issue we learn from from this court at various times as well i also wonder if we address the alternative issue sometimes the court will take jurisdiction over it even though we don't think they had it to begin with so those are things that by reason of which the alien is described in such a structure subsection occurred before the date of enactment of this act in section six so to see an act unlike era they came out if the sack so the combination add up to the argument that the court has been referring to that is the statute was in clearly intended by congress in order to apply to actions that took place prior it is clearly applicable in that context that is he's deportable in that context or in this case removal in that context and he's not eligible for relief under under two trial c and the reason that he's not  for discretionary to twelve c relief as a result as a result of the actions of congress the only thing you then have to consider is whether congress permissibly made that retroactive and that's the argument that the judge kleinfeld was referring to that only applies in a situation where you've surrendered something you have a right to in the first place based on your expectation of of that relief his committing a criminal offense is not surrendering something that he had a ri will see that's what states are says the alien is required to produce that is you have to prove you are eligibility in order for me to remand to the agency you have to make that promise a show and if you can't make that proficient showing there's no reason for this court even if it if there's nothing further i'd love to talk about your section or anything else