standard and this is the simple case that if you want to look at the technical form of the law you have to agree with the government the government sent a certified receipt to an address that had been provided to the government but this is the classic case where form does not lead to justice this is the classic case where substance really should take precedence over the form even if you look at the whole issue about the footnote and what i'm referring to is when the motion to reopen was made to satisfy the end of censure the quotation hearing even judge simpson the immigration judge here in san francisco looked and said if any something's wrong here the signature on the certified receipt is not the same as a signature on the order to show cause document and to be honest your honor i'm frankly confused about what he's referring to in terms of the order to show document because as i've looked at both of those things from the record i believe that neither of those signatures belonged to my client now the other problem we have with this particular case is we're talking about a deportation proceeding that began in one nine hundred ninety five actually in one thousand nine hundred three under the or the illegal immigration reform illegal immigration reform and immigrant responsibility act but despite all of that the fact that the judge recognized something was wrong with these signatures and you noted that it should have at least been enough to say maybe we need to have a factual hearing rather than just denying anything in this kind of blew up this case now why would a person like my client who had everything to gain and nothing to lose by coming to an immigration deportation hearing  because this was a situation where at least with the initial motion to reopen they do the affidavit and of course they're in such a hurry that the use the name illuminati this done so they were using what i call boilerplate language from another case  nuys so in that sense they were just in a hurry to get something because this guy had been in custody and that's the ticket or point of about thirty days now he's been in custody two and a half years another lawyer comes in to take over and she tries to  build up the case and does a little bit more now of course at this time nobody has access to the administrative record and if you actually look in the court file you see that the administrative record of file six months late and to even be more honest with you and to many of the administrative record is woefully inadequate it doesn't include the initial application her political asylum there's a lot of stuff that's not in there but at any rate given the fact that we have the deadlines we just went ahead and presented wrong for the immigration judge and wrong for the board of immigration appeals to not grant the motion to reopen but i very least they should grant the motion to reopen so that the i a e a or the immigration judge can decide if daniel john i mean i'm looking at this booklet that i got called immigration law on the ninth circuit we do refer to the cases in our brief there are other cases that are referred to here that say that even if a motion is beyond the time limit are some things that equitable tolling is being involved and my probable is that i look at the papers before the and i don't see yet and that's why i'm asking you if there if i'm wrong well   you know these are people that are what i basically says are using boilerplate language and what they do allege hate there is the element of surprise here he had gone to the or to the original political asylum interview he genuinely ambushed and so if you look at some of the other documents that are in there he's putting down i five eighty nine pending the political asylum application is pending now he did that more than once he did that on several immigration applications know i'm still waiting for my hearing and there were there was a time let's say ten years ago when it would take years to go from the time that you problem application to the time that you genuinely were able to get in front of an immigration judge now what i don't understand is why did daniel campbell who was a las vegas resident to san francisco and cranky and i believe the only possible explanation is because it was convenient for the individual of prepared his political asylum application to get him in front of an immigration judge for him to go from stockton to san francisco it wasn't in my client's best interest i mean why would my client frankly i don't understand why my client would allow himsel to file for political asylum when he was a nurse there's a shortage of nurses in the united states by the year two thousand and ten will have a one million or shortage in this country and that was the easiest route is no that was the most  i mean it was a guaranteed as soon as you pass the test as soon as you get a license you can get a visa but these individuals who file these political asylum applications generally don't have a they don't know what they're doing and that's what i believe happened in this particular case to the stockton address you know he must of had noticed and so i believe that what i'm asking you to do is to say the image the board of immigration appeals at the very least should grant the motion to reopen so they can take additional evidence s sure it's been done five five years later six or seven years after the actual hearing but he was the ambush and that just doesn't comply with due process so in that sense i've seen these other cases from the one circuit where yes if we believe know i'm stuck with an incomplete record because of the previous lawyers that went before me and even the previous non lawyer they went before me and started tried to build the strongest possible case to show that yes there was a hint that we were surprised yes we weren't trying to hide anything yes we would have come to the hearing and yes we had everything to gain by appearing at a hearing and everything to lose by not apparent and so based on that the logic would say this is a case a classic case of product this is a classic ca where form that's form should not come over substance and in order to do the right things should find a procedural mechanism to ask the board of immigration appeals to grant the motion real quick at least have another hearing so we could provide those documents thank you arguments made at the podium this morning obviously as the briefing points out none of these arguments were made before the board of immigration appeals or the immigration judge he's failed to exhaust and the court can consider them but unless the dministrative adjudicators and he simply can't do that but i want to say that lest the court believe that these new matters have any substance at all they do not and one only needs to look at the materials which a court has to exclude but the court has if the court which is to solace itself with the fact that really there is nothing to the allegations it can look only to the evidence first mr ocampo didn't want an asylum application filed by gerry you know why did he sign it first of all why did he include his that address if that wasn't his address if he filled it out if mr ocampo feel that application not himself  does not establish that there was any fraud whatsoever there was no no misleading whatsoever intentions of live by the evidence he's a fly in support of the allegations and you know even if generally what happened was relatively quickly after the sound application is filed a master calendar hearing is scheduling hearing is is is then that which is schedule is made out so relatively quickly the applicant gets in front of an asylum gets in front of an immigration judge for scheduling and my guess is that the hearing that mr campbell missed was such a scheduling conference you know seven years he also the fact that there are notations on the visa application and they just now in these waiting for five eighty nine application doesn't really hold water and when you consider h notice of the hearing is not provided either by personal service or by certified mail to the address provided by the alien there's no question that an address was provided by the alien there's no question that certified mail  evidence presented to the immigration judge and the b a which reviewed the immigration judge's decision was the blanket assertion the fair assertion i didn't get it the dog ate my homework that simply as the immigration judge probably found not good enough you must come up with some explanation you were deprived of by you know terry oh you you gave your attorney two thousand dollars certified mail to a responsible adult at that address so if you've got a signature you've got compliance the judge indicated that he thought mr ocampo signature was on the second but that was not a component of his decision he said w