necessary is there any evidence in the record that your client took any steps after that hearing when he received oral and written notice that he took any steps to follow up with this attorney or do anything in response to that information no your honor there is nothing of that nature in the record except for mr walker has an affidavit that she was told that i will let you know what you need to  a statement in my plans if it is within the record that at some point early to solve them he was arrested for driving without a license he was told that there is an ice to teener on him yet when the ice did infectious off to pick him up she took that as an evidence that the case was resolved my were did what he promised i no longer have to worry about remove proceedings and this is precisely why he did not the word of the actual and you know you have to realize this is not a case where an attorney to meet in error the client immediately knew about this air yet waited for some time plus years before trying to remedy this situation in this case one of the that is the status of the i one thirty petition based on mr lowell as marriage it has been approved by the service so it's well  decision to deny his motion to reconsider or that motion to reconsider don't understand wish any error of law or in fact an immigration judge as earlier decision to deny his untimely motion to reopen the second issue is whether the board its discretion in denying petitioners motion to reconsider filed with the board in terminate his immigration proceedings in light of the supreme court's decision in prayer sessions in both instances the board acted appropriately with respect to the first issue the board did not air in denying his motion to reconsider and i apologize with respect to the first issue the board correctly pointed out in its decision that mr bailo have conceded that he missed the filing deadline by approximately ten years but didn't meaningfully present any argument or reason why he could not have been expected to file earlier to establish due diligence to warrant equitable tolling of the filing deadline similarly in his brief to this court he does not show that the that his lawyer had just abandoned him you know i'm not sure when he would have been on notice that his lawyer may have abandoned him but he was aware that he was in removal proceedings as he showed up to his rescheduled hearing he knew that he had an ice detainer on him when he was in custody by leaving his probation and upon release when nobody showed up to get coming get him that would have triggered the duty of inquiry to look into his case to satisfy his due diligence conceded that there was no evidence in the record that he exercised due diligence do you agree that the i one thirty for tuition has been granted i'm not aware of the status of that particular petition assuming that that's correct file and get approved the separatists and in order to return given that he has a us citizen spouse and child at this point and if the one thirty as why one thirty has out that he and ice detainer and then continued to not pursue or seek any type of relief to legalize his status he didn't exercise due diligence he didn't in any way none of provisions for when and how jurisdiction best with this but the immigration judge this court actually issued a decision and a bad in two thousand and six which did address that issue and appropriately considered that the regulation established when subject matter for jurisdiction vest with the immigration court and that is when the five that notice to appear is filed with the immigration court that the immigration court that do you just satisfies its obligations under the statute in two i one thirty for a moment and its consequences to leave the record here shows the last fall the sort of divided panel of this court denied the petition to state removal correct that's right if that petition had been granted and mr barlow were still in the united states would be would he be required to leave for five years before he could take advantage of the i won thirty grand or would he be able to stay there but i'm not sure i don't know regarding the second issue in this case the board did not err in denying this or by the hose motion reconsidered that was filed with the board to reconsider and terminate his immigration proceedings in light of the supreme court's decision in prayer because as i was just discussing importantly the regulation does not require that the date and time of the proceedings to appear in the initial notice in order to bestir section under the regulation rather the regulation compels inclusion of such information where practicable under eighteen when that information is not in the notice to appear the regulation fires of the immigration judge to schedule the initial removal hearing and provide notice to the government that the in the alien of the time place  reliance on pereira does not point to a different conclusion that case dealt only with the narrow issue of if the government serves a non citizen with a document that is labeled a notice to appear but it does not specify the time or date of the initial hearing does it trigger the stop time rule the court held that it did not student trigger the stop time roll and emphasize multiple times the narrowness of its ruling as a court explain the analysis of the question presented in prayer