fairness in immigration court proceedings petitioner is narry to a united states citizen and has the united states citizen child she presented an application with the government to adjust her status to that of a lawful permanent resident the government accepted the application provided her work authorization provided which provide her social security number and title to her to remain legally in the united states at the time of her interview with the immigration  she was informed that there was a prior deportation order order entered against her four years prior so we filed a motion to reopen based on defective there was a notice to appear in the file there was a certificate of service of a certified return receipt mailing which was a week apparently a week after the notice to appear document w judge then determined that it was enough that that there was a notice that there was a certified return receipt stands even though there was no return receipt in the file precedent ok so if you i'm sorry ok so when the immigration judge denied that we filed a motion appeal to the b i yes and in that appeal we supplemented the fact that that address that we don't even know if anything was even sent by the immigration but in any event that address that they provided that they got from these foreign occupation was totally different then then the then what the client would ever have provided merits the board in this case didn't even make any decision regarding whether notice was received whatsoever they basically just said you should have raised an ineffective you didn't we're not going to entertain it the fact that there was defective notice that she never received notice that the rebuttable presumption of the government never shifted because there was no sort of quadrature which he did they didn't even raise that issue so basically the point is the law requires that no a properly supported motion to reopen might have done the trick here but she filed a motion to reopen without any kind of affidavit filed for she for ms helper and filed a motion to reopen without proper support and and that the day that is required is that it's certainly required for in effect for the counsel issues he's raised certainly required in those weren't even raised in the motion to reopen and not what this court file in the government's file there's not there are references in the pleadings that the petitioner filed to having seen it return receipt that was signed by somebody who was not mail then the purpose of the great beauty of certified mail unlike the great unwashed us normal mail is that you get a piece of paper that said it was delivered to whom and when and could be delivered to the wrong person at least you know was delivered to the house and maybe a responsible person lives there we don't have that here and it just seems like through no fault of yours because i know you're representing your client but she doesn't get the notice nobody has proof that she got a notice and they took the care to send it by certified mail that the government can't even show that certified mail went through how does it make sense under salt or the other cases not to simply grant the motion to reopen decide the case and be on our way we now have probably gotten what two more years just to talk about the notice yet i think i can certainly see your point your honor and a properly supported motion to reopen hasn't properly supported that she hasn't even mentioned it in her motion to reopen the way but maybe that's a whole administrative issue maybe she gets the motion to reopen because she doesn't have the notice and then that rises or falls chips fall where they may just because of the normal rules and laws i mean she still gets her motion to reopen is granted at least she'll come back and still what she was opposed to show up and have a hearing about i guess maybe i could i wonder if you can split that you maybe can't i think it's difficult based on simply because the problem with the the problem with the notice to appear is really very much intimately connected with the question of the of the the asylum application which is we don't we don't know for sure but seems to be where the incorrect address is that was what it was came from and that even even if  didn't have an effective assistance of counsel and you just have that wasn't her address and that's not her and she didn't get the notice why would you need to decide that issue to just say ok now you can at least you can have a hearing instead of the absentia determination that's what i'm wondering could you not let it in that way you don't have to think the government doesn't isn't coming in saying this is actually her correct address and we know it was sent there with you know if you said that i'd say read if there is proof of attempted delivery and notification of certified mail a prior a strong presumption of effective service arises so my question really is what do you make of certified mail when there is no that particular facts where there is a return receipt there's still and we've cited cases in our brief there's still a presumption and somehow that presumption has to be overcome and in the motion to reopen you would and the i mean i think there are some factual questions about the affidavit and for example if you look at the photograph with the asylum you sign on the application you look at the photograph on that that raises some questions to what quickly i did well she she claims that this was wholly done without her without her knowledge following this it's not her photos she claims in her affidavit well it certainly looks to me like a photo of the same person as in the visa as with the visa yes i think there are a lot of questions raised here that should properly have been raised before the immigration judge and that's you have the of those look different from the other signatures and again i i'm not sure precisely what to make of that and i i think but i think this is the kind of thing that should have been sorted out before the to as you said sorted out and then you don't decide that the notice was received of some presumption or that there's probably only signatures or that she is who that other photo is i mean wouldn't that make sense to just figure that out and be on the wa well your honor i think our position is it would have made sense for that to happen in the first instance and that's why we're asking the court to to firm the board and to deny this petition and then what happened to her she's on her way out of the country well you know it's not from your honor you know i don't know i don't know where she's from but what i do know is that she was here in violation of the immigration laws of the united states now maybe consistently held that furthermore the there's you're entitled to more than one bite at the apple when you're when you're in of sentient deportee so you can raise an argument the b i eight consistently with similar cases in their published decisions received the notice the board never made its effectiveness instead they said oh you should have made and ineffective and in other similar cases where they said you should have the you made now an ineffective claim they've considered it on their merits so why is th they didn't issue a decision whether or why i know what they did but really the question to you is why didn't you file an affidavit you you know you're the one that was you're the one that's really criticized and it almost sounds from what you're saying that if you really you said i'm going to file an affidavit and then file it before the board and she'll be able to stay at least another couple of years the quick review of the file which she saw and we didn't see the return receipt that was the first argument that we would have raised because we didn't know who this carlos louise ruiz or whatever was at that point we don't know what it was that an atari  defective notice with no affidavit because the lawyer say there's i can you say it's not received well basically along with the with the motion was the adjustment of status application in there was her visa which proved that she wasn't she didn't enter illegally doesn't government how is how does anybody supposed to evaluate whether notice was received or not if she didn't say i didn't know because it would be as i said with the application there was her biographic information there was her all her and that list lost me on that one that's all i had well have you basically saying here here's my application and i didn't get the notice i mean well normally the immigration judges will look at the at the address which was sent to you and verify whether in the application file to look at the normally that's what the immigration judges will do they'll say ok let's look at what she listed on her biographic information with it which is what we submitted with the motion to see whether that previous address four years ago was listed there which it was well i still don't have the answer now you're making a strong argument maybe a good one that she didn't receive the notice and i don't understand there maybe she didn't correct address i'm sorry it he never did he never looked into the file you never did a meaningful review of the fall whatsoever he didn't look he didn't ask whether as required whether the address is a correct address he just basically would you brin living i don't think you're getting our point but we'll figure it out from the record next time i file an affidavit i mean a lot of times we are in these situations not because of the government because of the lawyer and that's a real disservice to the immigrant wor