already pointed out reveal transcripts all the time and i think it's probably fair to everybody that nobody actually said what's reported in the transcript but the transcript is what we've got how do you but he didn't he didn't express to tell him he also didn't really give him clear notice because he didn't give him written notice of the hearing there was a lot of cross messages that were given to to the titian or he was given a written notice just given this ambiguity as advice was by the immigration judge of the immigration that didn't have some sort of standard form that would give him the information again that he least to be heard on a different day in his presence he doesn't give him any written paper with repeat disclosure you know and he he never he except for one brief passage she never really even uses the word deportation throughout his hearing in his discussions with mr islams you never says you're being scheduled for deportation he yes and then when i filed a motion reopen i am legend that the record did not contain the d s language order that factual allegation was not contested by the either this or the immigration judge the immigration judges your client you know comes forward and you're making the motion to reopen or whatever before she hears so now what does that have anything africans or review here he told the immigration service that he'd been snared and released on a bond they opened up another file for him and in the following the find of that asylum application in one nine hundred ninety the immigration act was amended to provide for something called exactly he proceeded for fourteen years under this immigration problem or which was opened up and present he never knew that he'd been ordered to court and finally when he got after fourteen years of living he did i think eventually file one but i believe it was on time in may when may not have been accessible for that reason as well i think what this case really comes down to is whether the petitioner has has demonstrated that the immigration judge abused his discretion when he found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate reasonable cause for not appearing f was provided however at the time and as petitioner admits in his brief there was no regulation and no law that required any type of written assurances and furthermore clear why he wouldn't have received it he doesn't make any allegations that he had trouble receiving mail at that location or or any other reasons why he would not have received it through the regular course of the mail and even if these allegations that are true that the the wrong order was appended to the cover letter which had his name in indicated that there was a deportation order that was issued in his case for best director honor even if that were true it doesn't explain why he never received at least that correspondence and there's there's no allegations that that there was any reason why he would never see that he didn't move and failed to give notice of this is new address or anything like that it's  just one clear from the records in fact the records before this court would indicate that proper notice was sent however that issue is really kind of a red herring because all it does is lead him right back to where we start this case and that is whether he demonstrated reasonable cause for failure to appear at that september twenty eighth hearing because even if the the deportation order was reissued the next step for him to take would be to move to reopen his to deportation order or to appeal that decision and argue that he had reasonable cause for failing to appear at that at that hearing really the only issue that need redecide months court is whether he is now demonstrated that the immigration judge abused his discretion in finding that just not getting a written notice is reasonable cause for deciding not to follow the instructions that he was provided by the immigration judge the you can afford to find an attorney then he would have to speak for himself at the next hearing and warned that if he fails to return to court the court may proceed is that since after all this he asks do you understand and the petitioner says ye now under the circumstances the station economic package levin years later and say i didn't really understand and in fact because i didn't get a written notice which i admit wasn't required to be provided to me i have demonstrated that the i think based on the certified administrative record just before this court the evidence shows that he that the his deportation order once and then all through his last known address as required and that that's should be sufficient to show that he did to supplement the record that was before i or brought forward this allegedly mismatched notice to deportation and as i mentioned before even if it was a mismatch my cover letter with these issues before he raised he claims that he raised this issue before the board regarding the mismatch documents but you never sought to supplement the record or brought in this mismatch record of the hearing before the i j you know that the initial hearing at which it's continued or those routinely transcribed to the just transcribed when there's like a later motion you know that's how we get this transcript i'm i believe the tape that goes in the archives and it's there for people a later time it's transcribed i'm not sure in your honor with regard to the timeframe of this particular case however i believe the current procedures are that if a case  y i'm not so sure that that's even before this court your honor i i believe the record reveals that he did not timely file an application from the car and therefore wouldn't be eligible he is currently still under the