to what we think should have been done in this case in terms of the defense counsel's function and the roadmap appears in a decision of this court from two thousand  changing the defended admitted about six hundred dollars of lost some out but stipulated to pay restitution and them out of twenty dollars to forty thousand dollars so that's the kind of resolution that would protect the defendant from automatic removal that doesn't seem to have become widely are universally known despite the fact that n decision of the united states supreme court and this should have been part of the arsenal are part of the tool box that the fans council could have used amount and then and then that was then then he withdrew it he still didn't know that it was going to affect his immigration status that's the crucial element that's missing in this the what happened was that the defendant was advised several times that amount over ten thousand dollars that admitting that would result in subject to automatic rule those are not the same thing and that's easily demonstrably because before the chang opinion everybody thought that that these numbers could come out of  there's there's nothing to point in the record that would suggest that he that he made that connection which was very obscure he said and fact he said that he's left the immigration question to the defended a true case of the blind leading the blind he let the defended make up his mind about whether he wanted to take whatever unknown risk there was in the immigration consequence he he made an effort to contract to contact professor smith at u c davis that wasn't successful and you can tell by his billing records point two hours quite run hours i don't need to tell the court that that indicates a missed phone call it or maybe an e mail it's not you don't have a conversation like this and point to hours or point one hours he didn't have the that's correct he turned it down without knowing that that was his opportunity and then in december they could have gone back to the well because if this was the whole this was the deal that the earlier offer well he wild at the time a he was uninformed so it wasn't that that's that's more or less speculation of course yeah to the contrary the letter from the u s attorney that's the only that's the only written record that we have and it states that he will be deported either way then they result would have been different and i think it would've i think it's entirely possible this is not something where we have to say this was pie in the sky deportation hearing itself now the opposite is also true that god those are the government's opportunities to prove it and they're that and cannot prove it they  was it's discussed in the breeze and that's and we don't think that the record supports the findings of the language that's been now focused on and i had it open right here  mr foley was speaking but but i can't believe i wouldn't do it because if that makes sense because in my mind i thought the ten thousand dollars was the aggravated felony amount unquote which it was but that doesn't mean that you get any advantage by going below ten thousand dollars the ordinary person indeed the ordinary lawyer they ordinarily criminal lawyer immigrant and in that situation it makes all the difference and it's a distinct difference between criminal law in immigration law it's we say that we as criminal defense attorneys are supposed to consult an immigration attorney but we seldom see a diametrically opposed result which we have here we have an advantageous plea bargain under the criminal law but a disastrous plea bargain under the