wrongful concession to the ineffective assistance of counsel all other constraints followed and various procedural maladies so i wish to address the issue as to whether or not she is an aggravated felon and then discussed in effect this is a counsel should extent that the determination that a conviction is a serious crime it's a discretionary determination it's not that you're to just review what your constitutional quine the question of law that you raised arguing that her drug actions were not serious now looking at the poorest part of the analysis whether or not she has an illicit trafficking conviction we use the modified category of call now it's just to look at thirty seven thirteen seventy eight which holds that she's been convicted for a person as a person who possesses for sale any controlled substance and we have to find the visibility there look at the next tattoo over eleven thirteen seventy nine activities that require specific intent but the court used the modified categorical analysis to find that transport maybe transport one's own use not necessarily for sale and that that conviction record don't you get to that point well no no your honor because we go back to seventy eight and we could find as we need to look at the facts in dealing with withholding what would be presented argue when don't try pathetically to analyze the model a modified character analysis that one person can hold that the behest of another person who wishes to spell which is exactly what happened in this case she was basically an the move on an entry violation the government saying that they'd have to transport witnesses said no you can't have it that way you have to balance our concerns against yours and we have to transport this witness to testify against you no no no you need to concede first case we have a permanent resident and what is needed to can sustain grounds removal are documents which travel with her file so there'd be no hardship for the government and there is no reason for either the immigration to impose velazquez on that case life i don't think that and i don't think that's what church cares this ask me and i can i clarify saying what in the record to say this is not an aggravated felon you know what i understand the statute itself is divisible defined in the federal statute right that's number one thought it's not a categorical crying one under the statute right and number two there's no evidence in this record from which you can apply to modif and then there's the section that destroys counsels before and you know about transportation the stealing was convicted and pled guilty to play guilty to eleven thirty seven eight which is typically states possession for sale so you're saying that definition of aggravated felony in this case with the aggravated felony determination and one zero one zero one eight forty three which is trafficking of a controlled substance we clearly have under eleven thirty seven eight possession for sale our position is that there's no you know conduct outside of these two statutes that would you could not be convicted of question for sale the second our position is your honor that she's also movable based on the fact that reopen the finding or the question of whether or not she was eligible for removal of holding of removal she pled and admitted doing the deportation hearings that with her prior counsel that she was convicted the charge instated removal based on those charges now petitioners counsel to counsels removed then comes along in front of the board and tries with a motion to reopen to to take back the language  a brief to bore the immigration appeals that was the only issue that was presented in his motion to reopen whether or not petitioners counsel was in fact of in regards to the question of removal throughout the different proceedings the trial to come back to that is trying to the back door to attack the admissions in the earlier proceedings but we would suit your honor either way even if this court found that when you turn the general act in that or while actually overrule the board that was an educated decision which can be applied retroactively to a case you know any case presented in front of the attorney general with regard to with regard to the types of drugs involved and then the court can look at the statute for that purpose but were against stating that she was never convicted of possession with intent to sell as alleged in jurisdictional grease she was convicted of possession for sale including possession for somebody else to sell possession for herself to sell on the record does not distinguish which and in addition to that with regard to prior counsel there were three part counsel before present counsel the first conceded erroneously charges