good morning hours or afternoon depending on your time zone i am assistant united states attorney for the eastern district of washington richard person representing the united states as appellant in this case i will be reserving two minutes this time for  of the please of the court turning to argument may it please the court does the absence of date and time information on a notice to appear otherwise stripped a an immigration portability of aliens and according the district court below in this case and the three subsequent cases will be talking about the answer to that question is yes and united states here today because the district court was incorrect in that finding turning to the case of mr b steed her nand as pacifically in the court's order in that case as we stand here today having the benefit of carrying gifty the whittaker decided by this court and  firman decided by this court we know that the rationale that the just record conclusion in that case is irreconcilable what is now the law in a circuit and every circuit to address the issue which  idea that there  is well firstly your honor the government's position here i think is a reasonable reading of the regulations at issue which is that in order to vestry stiction the charging document is filed with the court regardless whether date and here if we're to read the regulation is requiring the service of a hearing notice before jurisdiction vast even assuming that the regulation is not a claim processing rule which is the primary argument of government here then we would have the regulation mandating that the immigration court docket schedule and prepare and send a hearing notice for a case which is not yet acquired subject matter jurisdiction but that is none because jurisdiction indeed vested when the charging document was filed so you're ignoring that's the theory being provided later on in the care and if the court did find it important that the hearing notice was served later on because it allowed the court to answer the question without addressing the followup question which is what if hearing notice hadn't been decided to allow the court to decide the issue without addressing that question  does your honor the court would have jurisdiction over the proceeding and the court would be responsible for by providing a remedy to what at that point would arguably be some sort of procedural violation the remedy presumably in actual immigration court would be for the immigration judge to offer a continuance after informing the respondent of his rights to the responded and we don't have the statistics on the record before us but i can say it would be highly unusual for an immigration judge in a pro se rule hearing to not of and stiff fine counsel of prepare for the hearing without even being asked by the respondent so that would be the remedy for a missing hearing notice not to reach into what is otherwise  immigration tribunals lawful authority to hear a case granted to it by congress and tell that tribunals why you never had jurisdiction over this person in the st place which does bring me to the facts of this case regarding the hearing notices if this court were to determine that a hearing notice we're required to have for lack of a better word perfect subject matter jurisdiction this court would then have to look at the facts of this case and decide whether the defendant here prove that he didn't receive a hearing notice or even what the evidence suggests and here we have a hearing notice that indicates that court staff with the immigration court faxed it to a detention center where custodial officer was tasked with personally serving it on the defendant here that's the only reasonable way to read this to fit a service in this case presumably the alien as these proceedings did not have a fax machine in his opposed to some of the others he doesn't even concede that he cared at the hearing what is the remedy there is that where we get to the one thousand three hundred and twenty six attack because you have another line of defense which seems to be no matter how badly you were treated if you didn't jump through the right hoops you have no defense and you go there with me not me i can  honor and it's important to note here that defendant did not concede that he was at his removal hearing although he hasn't disputed that fact either and that removal order in this case says it was based on the admissions and concessions of the defendant and it also indicates the defendant waived appeal so although we don't have an audio recording of the immigration hearing in this matter since you mentioned the way you appeal and this will come up in another place it any significant recollection of his hearing he did not submit it to an operation in this case and we don't have the recording which was requested but never produced in discovery so we don't know substantively what happened what questions the council what i mean even if that were somehow correct then i have a lot of trouble with that argument if you concede that as i agree you must but there was initially jurisdiction why even if that weren't a waiver i don't see what would be fundamentally unfair about he's there at a hearing congress has made it clear and one thousand three hundred and twenty six dollars there can't be a collateral attack we hold with the government side that jurisdiction attaches and that's it do you have any fallback in terms of any way of attacking things that are quite unfair at the extreme would be something that really was in absentia for example is the waiver of valid was there really a waiver do you have an avenue to raise those because there are cases that say if you weren't informed of your right to appeal then you give each one inch to that a fair reading it is a fair reading your honor in response to you we have that based on the record for us the short answer is no because we did not have the actual recording and we don't have a number of what would be normal due process arguments and may in the event the group decides that the government must prevail in this vest at all when the government doesn't take these i think the last jurisdiction analysis is simply a better colloquial way to understand it because it quite frankly is odd to say that the court never had jurisdiction when it is that additionally or close your jurisdiction argument talks about all of these things as best claim pop claim processing rules if this court were bound by that it would your honor but no this court is not this