received a notice that it's been received by them he sends a letter to the asylum officer and now despise them tells them hey look i've decided to go back to india i'm going to go try to find a place to live someplace other than where i was right had problems if you're going to leave show up at six thirty cents in st show your passport and show that you're ready to leave they don't tell him in fact they don't do anything for several months until the issue the notice to appear at that time for if you don't have a valid order of removal notwithstanding that the individual left the united states we should be able to come back in and sensually correct the record because there's a practical matter i think what we have here is i think the case shows an effort by a non citizen trying to correct the record after he's come back in and it also shows what's happened within the agency there's not a lot of accountability there's supposed to be something that occurs procedurally by way of here's an application here's your receipt we've accepted it appears the withdrawal here's what you should do and that didn't happen in this case you have any questions i'm ready to answer i don't see any have a few minutes left in some sort of dialogue i think is is exposition of the facts of this case is is good in that it shows you a situation that exists i would what i would like to point out that there's one portion of he kind of left out of his exposition of the facts and that is when mister singh completed his asylum application and submitted his asylum application he had in front of him the instructions for the asylum application which pacifically inform him that you know in presenting your asylum application you are placing yourself under the jurisdiction of the agency you are imposing on yourself a burden to one keep the agency up to date on your address now we're going to send the order to show cause or notice to appear the referral to the immigration court it's all going to go to that address for that reason and you can be removed as a result of that and it's fits under and it's under states and was paroled back into the united states for a hearing that's an example of a situation where the obligation to keep the agency up to date on your address outside the country is clearly in place and it's always been that way there's nothing in the regulation that says you don't have to do that when you're if the person is either not in status were about to go out of status when they file their withdrawal the responsible thing for them to do  the the person really should leave the country exactly and that's he was that way what this gentleman do you know your honor it's not the instructions specifically tell you how to do that it says if you're going to travel outside of the united states either to leave or to travel and come back in accordance with the status that you're given as part of your asylum application you have to come to the agency you have to voluntarily depart and there's a regulation that describes and is frankly a statute t attention and stayed after a period of time presumably the government would have served them with a notice to appear for removal proceedings the government did not just ask an in a normal case this is certainly this case but in a normal case i finish my question then you can formulate your answer ok in a normal case where someone withdraws and they stay they do the irresponsible thing they be read in conjunction with the other portion of the statute that says you have to tell us when you're leaving i think i do there's no way to read that independently of the two the registry statute is designed for people who are required to register if this is really had come to us and said i'm leavin you didn't do that he said i think i would be better off if i went home he didn't say i'm leaving he didn't sam leaving today he didn't say i'm leaving a month from now which is what he and that's that he's withdrawing as that's correct and he didn't leave receive the notice to appear what he doesn't tell you is he entered the united states and the same day flew from los angeles to reno nevada and lived in the loop in a house in reno nevada from that date he doesn't tell you who lived in that house he doesn't tell you who signed for the notice to appear when it was sent to that address he does say that he never found out about the notice to appear but that frankly is not part of the stash for us to construct what i'm telling you is that congress had something in particular mind they say if you come to the united states you give us your address on the registry statute if you submit to the jurisdiction of the agency under asylum you have certain obligations that come to that including withdrawal from the agency including keeping your address at the date and if you feel to do that by itself is sufficient to establish the restriction of the immigration court and if you've got to you know to put yourself in the position of the immigration judge all you know is the immigration judge you know is the agency is you don't know where this guy is you do know that he's subject to removal you do know that he was served in accordance with the statute with the nose to appear which is the only thing that's required to establish movability and  the immigration judge said that doesn't that by itself the fact that you've left on a certain date the fact you say you didn't get it isn't enough congress said in two thirty nine c that service on the address that you provide is enough by itself enough to establish your stiction that's enough for an innocent or ok i think we understand your argument thank you very much for appearing here today any reb country i will do everything possible to live in peace i have to agree with the court that you know i think we have someone who is trying to do the right thing and is trying to go through the