to section two ten which was the agricultural provision of the immigration reform an intro like that ninety six rather than procedural recession however the government instituted remov there has been no showing of that at all it seems that the government should not be permitted to use removal proceedings has an alternate when in fact reception would be appropriate and there of course they were bar the other issue your honor which has i believe interestingly been your dress to you just within the last few minutes is the rule making authority of the attorney general and excuse me it has become problematic and i believe clearly the court's  with that and and then we have your attorney general for creating a rule which states that although only to twelve h requires extreme hardship in his discretion he will sixteen miles from the checkpoint activity didn't fall in that statute so that would take out that ground presumably for relief then the question is the two twelve which waiver and if there's an assault with a deadly weapon charge what are we able to tell from the be as to what ground have had these cases where when we have two grounds that would be normally non reviewable and i agree with you and then we would have this other ground having to do with the alluding which would be a legal issue that we would be review was dismissed but the next last sentence reads the respondent made several other arguments on appeal while we had knowledge the presence of positive equities in this case none of these arguments persuades us that the appeal should be sustained whether in this case just because it's exactly the same posture in a language is so close why you know if we were to disagree with you on the  yes your honor and i would agree with that point i would like to turn to something opposing counsel mentioned at the beginning of her argument she argues that floors adjusted under the soft provisions the special agriculture worker commissions in fact the record is somewhat judge analyzed the remove ability ground under the amnesty provisions so this case is one in which mr flores actually had to make an affirmative application to receive his green card to receive permanent resident status and there was in fact an allegation of fraud brought up in the record and alleged at the beginning of the case the government was forced to withdraw that allegation of fraud because the same provision provisions requiring that any information submit it as part of those applications be kept confidential and not be used in any way against aliens and there was no way to support the allegation of fraud however it was known to the government and that he had not been convicted of a felony and here he had been convicted of a felony like what the council had made some point that it's unclear whether he would then be analyzed waiver purpose wise as  admitted or not admitted in your view is that still up in the air if it were to go back i'm not sure that it would be i'm not really clear that there's any provision barring a lawful permanent resident from receiving a true twelve each waiver immediately helped transport them further north into the country could be any evidence that the alien were smuggled but we don't know the facts here i guess we know that he met this woman who was not a relative i would like to make that clear as well that was brought up she was not a relative he provided her with his wife's documents and told her to learn me but learned what was in those documents so that should they be stopped a stance from entity she could as his wife and that certainly does support that the allegation that he was helping her elude inspection i see that my time is expired if you have any further questions and piers not thank you thank you