to one count federal program bribery a felony at the time that she pled guilty she was represented by pointed counsel david t brown in the briefing affirmatively told by her attorney that the she was misled and so that there would be no immigration consequences for pleading guilty because the government was prepared to help her sister and immigration proceedings that were to at his affidavit mr brown indicated that obvious he said no such thing and then he said that there would be consequences for the for the guilty plea when eight years later actually we got to court because this raid of eric or novice was filed after she was already sentenced to time in jail and initially she started the process of challenging the immigration there would be immigration consequences for the guilty plea now that's not what happened actually what happened was that the district court judge asked mr brown if there would be in any immigration consequences where he was to the defendant's coun and he said yes absolutely there would be by then the ms brown indicates that she had already been told by her counsel that there would not be no consequences and that the government would actually a sister because of our cooperation and straining out her even if you were right that there was no prejudice because she had made a full clear voluntary confession well that's where the ineffective assistance of counsel claim comes in once you made it would not have been rational to reject a plea agreement in light of the fact that she had confessed well if she had taken her chances the core perhaps or to her trial attorney could a challenge that underlying confession is a lot of on what basis is there anything in the record to indicate what basis she might have had to challenge that voluntary confession there's nothing in the record and that's where an evidentiary hearing is all  least at the very minimum at the district court level this should have been set forth evidence you're hearing to test the credibility test the claims of the various zip as a question i have is an evidentiary hearing for what purpose looking to deport or that was filed in the judicial district court in las vegas so that's supports your contention that she was told by mr brown that there would be no immigration consequences or somehow that she would be assisted by the by the government in challenging any deportation proceedings so i'm sorry you just said that he said in that other proceeding that there would be no immigration  consequences and there were obvious since his seems to be that i read somewhere in the record that what he said in that other proceeding and i too had trouble finding it but what i read in the briefs but what he said in the proceeding was that the government was not seeking to deport her and the argument raised by the government is that at that time that was correct well it's correct but you can see how it could be misleading to its overall c e o if that's what she's hearing from her counsel that could be construed in many ways as attorneys maybe were a little more  of counsel in the sense of failure to perform up to professional standards how about prejudice i mean is there was there a likelihood a realistic likelihood that she could have escaped without a felony plea of guilty or or an mr brown to try to just a little bit harder maybe he would have achieved a little different result and if i may all reserve render my time for rebuttal thank you conviction and and to because both the district court and its ron's counsel advised her that her conviction for bribing a nevada d m v employee to provide fraudulent fraudulent d s could lead to her deportation at her guilty plea ms ryan told the district court advised district court that she understood under oath that this conviction could affect her deportation rights and that it could also affect her bill her ability to withstand deportation or put off the deportation the subject came up again seventeen months later her sentencing when the district court revisited it and asked is this conviction going to subject miss ryan to deportation at that time her counsel said it most certainly does your honor and the probation officer immediately chimed in she certainly had she certainly could have to set the machinery and motion and sought to have done it now or that also doesn't go to whatever colloquy she had or did not have with her attorney that was that was a discussion between the court and mr brown as to the effect of the entry of a plea but that doesn't necessarily dress the extent to which mr brown had  similar conversation with his client not at that time but at the time she entered her guilty plea when she's placed under oath and here the district court asks her understand if there are any side promises any side deals other than what she's representing to the court at the time and she also in a written plea agreement assured the court she signed the plea agreement there's no side deals the only promises that have been made to me or what i'm what's been represented in this plea agreement my attorney hadn't made me any promises other than than what been represented here in open court under oath what do you make of that letter that was filed against smith in family court where he says she's not facing any immigration consequences at the time my interpretation of that is is similar to judge lance that that was at a at the time that the letter the affidavit was filed there were battle at the time and the attorney filed this very short affidavit saying the government's not seeking to incarcerate ms ryan or that and that there is no deportation proceedings going on at the time that's really had nothing well right and you're out mr mr brown's affidavit family court yes your honor it is accurate it was accurate at the time there were no deportation proceedings that at the time this was during the  interim between her and her guilty plea and the sentencing i think there are approximately seventeen months during that time and is ryan represented under oath that there weren't any side deals or promises nobis is is a highly unusual remedy i would submit that eight years after the fact to almost eight years after her conviction to fall it is is an indication that she was the genuineness of her representation that there was something that she understood differently than what she told the district court is sort of in inverse proportion to the amount of time it took to get this rid of air is highly unusual remedied before the district court and the district court didn't make findings that this report was in the best position to to to evaluate this matter is he the judge at various points during the guilty plea proceeding what at one point was not even going to take a guilty plea unless he was assured that ms ryder fully understood the consequences of her guilty plea and und erstood what was taking place you know offhand i should know but i don't i and i know the judge there's just no no no we're doing was it was a judge jones also the original judge yes your honor that is that that is correct it was a lesser any other questions about this matter are submitted to the court right thank you c reseal had barely been in this country for a year and really didn't understand spanish very well it was asserted in her affidavit that she never spoke to her attorney in her native language and that she always had a speak to through an interpreter and that's just somebody that in the office of mr bro offices spoke spanish so she wasn't entirely clear what was going on at the time in order to roberta was provided which to me is very unusual because i practice in the state courts are always interpreters available for anybody that's a spanish speaker if they so much  misunderstand a word the interpreter is president of billable to to interpret things and they were they weren't present at that time which i thought was an important point as far as the time between be played out in two thousand and eight she was convicted in two thousand and ten she's been fighting this case ever since she was released from custody in two thousand and ten whether it be in the immigration courts or otherwise and she's had various councils at least two other council so for me so that it made it sound like there would be no immigration consequences in the future because the government was going to assist her in essential a sister a c e o and staying in the country that was the gist of the affidavit