good morning your honor is my name when the melon representing mr lang i received an order from the court directing us to discuss whether the district court has papers jurisdiction to review an issue that could have been considered the appeal court if it had been filed in a timely manner i question whether the word considered is the appropriate word i think the question is whether or not the appeal court would have had jurisdiction of a conspiracy to sell slash transfer which slashed possess marijuana for sale in violation of eleven three sixty slash eleven thirty five nine of the health and safety because he was found removable by the immigration judge for two grounds one to thirty seven eight to eighty three smaller aggravated felony second to thirty seven a two capital b small act violation of any law relating to a controlled jurisdiction to determine our jurisdiction that's true in determining our jurisdiction would we necessarily have had to confront precisely the issues involved you would have had to confront half of the key issues that you would only have confronted whether or not section quested it be dismissed getting a this conspiracy and a universal plea bargain had been arrived at on the eve of trial and they were all going to plead guilty and get acceptable free bargains and my client was offered a bargain that apparently he didn't agree with us apparently he was being pressured a great deal to accept that bargain and he starts out at page six of the brief which is page twenty five i believe of the fact that he was pressured before he entered  attorney it was a different arrangement from what you're saying now on the following page well it's been then describe it he's going to plead that he wants to plead to transportation but he's going to plead to possession for sale and then he's continued to have problems with fact and he's worried about putting everybody else in jeopardy then the d a gets angry and says i'm going to take these guys to trial and that's on pa of trial i guess that was a lot of back and forth and it was getting late in the dayak or late in the morning and it was apparently everybody was very very anxious to get this plea accomplished if we go through it mr lang complains the fifty nine and sixty two you still got to the bottom line of eight u s c twelve twenty seven eight to be one this is an alien is the court of all if he is a person convicted of a violation of a conspiracy or attempt to violate any law or regulation of the state related to a controlled substance or the single offense involving possession for one's own use of thirty grams or less of marijuana and here i know that that wasn't addressed below but it seems to be a separate ground on which we he was convicted of he would have been i was you know for cancellation of removal which he has been arguing from the very beginning of this case to the immigration judge to the board all along the way we have not alleged that he is not removable under that yes he is certainly removable because of this conviction you simply wouldn't have the opportunity you can't do it you would have the option to litigate piecemeal to offer an advisory opinion back to the board and say we find that he's halfway to they please the court my name is carla forum this is us attorney representing the happily in this case the immigration naturalization service i'll begin with the question that the crew were presented to the parties about ten days ago which is whether or not you s jurisdiction to review an issue that could have been considered by this court if it had been filed and timely manner the answer that question is now and i'll get to the reasons why i think it would be useful to go through the perceived history of the case some months later in september the b i affirm the immigration judge's order mr wang attempted to pursue the direct review that he was entitled to under section twelve fifty two that happened and i believe february of two thousand and one the next thing that occurs is in july two thousand and one mr lang filed a motion to reopen for the board of immigration appeals contending that under the new case that time of the briefing and the and as did the service and the result of that was that in december of two thousand and one the b i e deny that motion but the other thing that mr lan now fast forward into december two thousand and one when the b i e denies that motion that was the period during which the next thirty days mr wang might have filed a petition for direct review to this court appealing that  section twelve fifty two eighty you see the very same authority that under which he would have thought you would have been able to hear his petition for direct review after the b i affirm the i g removal decision and the reason for with this preexisting statutory framework and mr counsel for mr lang while he argues patil if he futility is really not an appropriate argument here because it wouldn't necessarily be futile this court opportunity to do it after the motion for reopening was denied he didn't do anything in response to that except filed a motion or rather itself filed the petition for writ of habeas corpus and the district court at that point the district court didn't have relating to a controlled substance that was twelve twenty seven eight to be one and the same argument that applies to whether or not you determine he planned he was an aggravated felony goes to also whether you could decide whether he had committed a crime relating to a controlled substance because under twelve if you today see those statutes a reference back by size so it's the same inquiry and same questions would have been presented to this court and that's part and actually what i would like to highlight to the court is a case of us here saying that had he come to us we in the determination of whether or not we had jurisdiction to hear his petition would necessarily have had to decide both issues the aggravated or that rivera sanchez somehow takes him out of being an aggravated felony is totally without merit because the record has the support for the conviction and i would just direct the court to the supplemental excerpt of record at the following pages at pleaded guilty to violating section one eighty two eighty one of the penal code he also pleaded guilty to violating section help health and safety section eleven three fifty nine at pages one of two one thirty one through one thirty two the immigration judge found that mr lang pleaded guilty to those offenses at page one seventy one the board of immigration appeal affirmed that decision on the motion to reopen the record at page one ninety one has the euro the immigration the board of immigration appeals decision all into whether these records aggravated felonies and having done that why doesn't that become a foundation for an every other proceeding involving the same parties because there are two grounds of removal there were only one ground and if it were an aggravated felony ability as i say this court is not an advisory body we're not asking the court to take a look at a whole group of grounds or remove ability and make decisions and vice to be this is what we would like to he was convicted of a drug offense there's no way you couldn't have concluded that i think that but we would have had to determine that the check whether we had jurisdiction let me ask you this he comes before you issue you have anything else thank you i think i've behalf of the family like the compliment both of you we hear many immigration cases and this is clearly want to which both lawyers are very very proficient at their craft and we appreciate your help it's a bit of a tricky issue you both i'm quite well