list of information that shall be provided to aliens the notice that the alien receives in this case did not include a date or a time if you're actually he did get that information were to appear and ye that time stops when the alien receives a notice under section two thirty nine a right therefore is our position that time should not stop until the alien receives all of this information now the time and date of hearing is clearly listed now the regulation was issued by the agency itself so it is merely another iteration of how the agency believes that the statute should be interpreted however under someone's first step we do not even look to what the agency thinks instead the facing trouble they are on notice that the government intends to instigate proceedings against them but the alien in this situation was not on notice of all the elements required by the statute we're not talking about a constitutional due process notice you were talking about notice within the context of the statute and within the context of the statute the specific statutory trigger the congress chose to trigger that stop time rule was notice munder section two thirty nine  the alien received that second notice within the time period so he was still in eligible to apply for cancellation of removal but applying that rule here the petitioner did not receive that list of information until well beyond the ten year mark he therefore should not be deprived of his ability to apply for this discretionary remedy does the failure to have a complete notice to appear or make a notice to appear somehow lo appear the government's argument is that it is nearly definitional so you can issue a notice to appear under section two thirty nine a and it need not in compliance with any of the substantive requirements position that taking this argument to its logical conclusion yields an impermissible result if the government need not comply with any of the substantive requirements found in section two thirty nine eight then what would stop the government from issuing entirely blank notice is to appear under section two thirty nine a merely for the purpose of stopping time and only later following up with the details with the time the date of the hear issue however as i said the second circuit found that whatever that time is the time does not stop for purposes of cancellation of a move until that second notice has been received and in time you decide what happens and  even the government should choose to use this two step process time should not start until that second notice when the alien is on notice of all of the information now simply because a statute might be moderately difficult for the government to comply with does not change its plain meaning and here the government has found itself able to comply with the statutory requirements in plenty of cases we're here today because this is the case in which it cannot now see a running out of time but i would just like to say that the witness there is a part there is a point of substantial compliance i mean the n c a a requirements there are certain ones that are that you would think of when the under section twelve twenty nine it isn't that they must provide this information that this isn't you must provide you know a three g it's that you must provide the written notice specifying and that's that he worked specify these things specifying is a is is kind of   i think there was an alteration in the third allocation but it's hard to tell from the from the record in the case we just us with a dumb question what's so difficult about putting a base in time for hearing  ts cannot always contact the board to say when you have the time available when does a see a win win or when can you schedule this so it isn't happening particularly when they're out in the field or when they're far away so what experience understanding knowledge of how to deal with those kinds of cases where is the court of appeals and so given those circumstances deference to the board wasn't it that way that's different here this is really the power deals where with relief questions and number of things and does a good shot and here are some things missing the things that are missing alternately are supplemented but there after the ten year period what set when you look at two thirty nine one of the interesting things is that two thirty nine is defined as a notice to appear for purposes of the section because it is defined as a clear purpose of the section we look at other clues sections of the statute refer back shores and in all those cases in one way form or fashion they refer back to a notice to appear under section two thirty nine in some ways somewhat at the language difference between the three but they all did so you've statute says with regard to service and the notice is that written notice the statute provides that written notice shall be given comma specifying it's not that these think that that it shall the administrative convenience point the government can change information provided in the first notice should it later find it necessary to do so in fact congress provided explicitly a process by which  information can be changed later the time should just not stop until the government fulfills its initial burden of proof of providing information in the first place and now finally even if this court does  is ambiguous it should not defer to the agency's interpretation now as your honour's brought up this court itself has held that deference is not warranted to agency interpretations of a statute of limitations or an effective date of the statute because these are not areas within the agency's expertise instead these are matters for courts to decide secondly the government's interpretation is not warranted deference because it violates the well established rule of construction that any ambiguity is in immigration statutes are construed in favor of the alien in question now at the start time rule takes away an important remedy from aliens the ability to apply for cancellation of removal this court should require that the government comply with each and every statutory step that congress has set out before that women he is taken away now if there are no other questions i'd just  conclude by saying this is not a case where the government loses based on a technicality the petitioner is just asking for the ability to apply for a hardship based discretionary remedy his ability to dish out should