prejudice i believe he never he never at all was told the facts so his decision making process was totally impaired never made the attorney never offered to try to be guilty to the other out there which occurred after the decision is consistent with the prevailing norms for the last twenty d plus years and the a b a standards which require an attorney to advise clients concerning any immigration consequences and also but we havenot from a duty to investigate and advise  naturalization and i would much rather go face the naturalization without admissions of being used against my own admissions being used against you think the government might have agreed to a pre that only covered post able to negotiate sector playing because there was a tape recording but that recording was never tested in court and he never had an opportunity to challenge i think recording is not correct that is correct correct here is even though he quite to that particular count that didn't cover the longer trunk for any actual al q sion he was not required to say that he committed any drug sales prior to the naturalization so he was not prejudiced because in essence you know the word negotiate that he did not have to admit to something prior to january live in fact he didn't admit to anything right based upon something other than what he said it is as guilty plea right the judge block said there had to be more specificity when removing promotions of this miss the pleadings at that point in the proceedings you have to have  that he did something the beginning of last year or the at the beginning of the of the last year of two thousand sudden or the end of last year so that would come in in the trial of the do you naturally vention clinton  that that committed a drug crime prior to the naturalization to something other than his guilty plea or the conviction itself which by virtue of the way he outs you that he actually got the benefit of what he's now seeking which is that he got to plead and get the benefit of the plane without having it for clones and making the government prove that he dealt drugs prior to naturalization but i'm just the last question i have is why what makes you think the government is just poo touched on this what makes you think this work and negotiated that the government would have put in a plea agreement that if he pleads guilty they will not seek to do not realize that you have to show a likelihood of that are you aware of any case any case where the u attorney's office has agreed in a plea agreement not to seek the natural zation and the other part of it would be they would have to bind another u s attorney's office it would be the southern district finding that the eastern district would not seek to be natural sandwich with both sides rely on the patio green madjid for a filler for making a better record is that what you're asking for here are prejudiced and i don't think there's any doubt that that and like i said this plea is not it was not entered intelligently knowingly or voluntarily i think that there should be a brother further examination of what the facts are and develop the record yes i do agree record caption and do we know any other connection to this particular issue re to the attorney in question any notice that you were intending to question his effectiveness opportunity to surface in these proceedings as it were yes i did they didn't they didn't didn't want to do that again what did they ignore the whole issue of you didn't intend any letter or anything of that now you would agree with you're not the right to affective assistance of counsel doesn't extend to advice regarding so called collateral consequences from a criminal proceeding is that a i would not believe so i think that incorrect statement i think we have to do it telling us for ten years prior to the norms in the prevailing norms require require and those cases involve the tyrolese the th amendment what the court should have done so i don't believe the collateral d i don't believe the supreme court was to have a categorical or rule and i don't think it applies and and  state why would the th a member provide lesser protection for naturalized citizens versus non citizens and i think that's why i think rodrigues is correct and also in rodrigues the in the consequences because if he naturalization case against the defendant can and will proceed even if the conviction is vacated nd the defendant was not prejudiced because even if he had been advised of the risk that he would be subject to the naturalization ability issue because under the facts of this case whether or not the court vacates the defendant conviction you naturalization case can continue and therefore no legal consequences would be remedied by granting the writ that the naturalization complaints against the defendant has to not been arrested and naturalization interview that was false and it can be demonstrated by evidence showing that merely one day before the date of his naturalization the defendant sold thirty five grams of heroin to a government  the naturalization complaint alleges that the defendant's naturalization was illegally preferred because he was not eligible for naturalization because it could not show that he had good moral character and even without the conviction the government can argue that the defendant la moral character because he sold heroin during the statutory period so the naturalization proceedings will not terminate on either ground or this court vacates the conviction and the naturalization is therefore not a consequence of the conviction now the defense says admission of guilt makes it virtually certain that the government will prevail and that's wrong and brings us to the prejudice because in this case the judge in the naturalization action just block has already denied judgment on the pleadings notwithstanding the him having committed a crime before his date government introduces that against and there and i just say also that as well as any civil action in this case is in discovery my understanding is that discovery would proceed so the government would seek you know depositions and interactive for us to try to develop a record engaged in conduct prior to this controlled substances offense prior to the date of his naturalization nor is it necessary in order for the government to prove either of the two bases of naturalization counsel was the that is exactly how the government recesses it was we would affirm the conviction i mean affirm the decision below the conviction stands there would have to be a bench trial after discovery where the government would have to prove that he sold drugs prior to that date and this recording that you have referred to you would have to play that record introduce that recording on january th the day before sinatra zation if he would be able to contest whether or not in fact that was a heroin sale or not right and that was going to happen yes yes i think yes though i'm a little hesitant because i don't want to make sure representation about exactly what that trial would look like if the court affirmed that the government might try to depose it missions that exist still praia with which he defended admitted to a conspiracy like i said and he also admitted to it shall beginning at the of the year at the end of last year so these two things although were not count to be enough to form a motion for a motion to dismiss on the pleadings because of the heavy burden they surely will come in any strong and they are prejudicial commit a crime before that no people did and they made a motion to dismiss and they didn't make out the burden and that's what happened that's part of the that part of the text also i would state that you know although the people state that test i mean here he's not even told anything with reference to immigration by his attorney who you put great trust in me as a th grade education not told anything but what he finds out later wrong after he does his time sole supporter of assault family i think that the government you know in this case if the court does granted or sense a better reconsideration or just develop the record the government may figure out that it's going to be a great more harm