voluntary departure order that was answered by the immigration order and later reinstated by the board of immigration  is void as all should be this because it was beyond this the authority of the immigration forum to be a to answer a voluntary departure order where the department of homeland security never actually initiated a move proceedings against bit confusing because we're targeted because suddenly matter station is generally appliances to courts where in this case an immigration court is part of the executive branch and it's a little bit better in my opinion to consider ok there's a supreme court decision for two thousand and thirteen which is city of arlington texas b s c c which which says there were agencies charged with administering congressional statutes both the power of the agency to act and the manner in which the agency acts are authoritatively prescribed by congress so when they act improperly no less when they act beyond their jurisdiction what they do is  argue it on number of places that the immigration court did not have jurisdiction so i'm not quite sure what you mean by jurisdiction here if it's not subject matter jurisdiction and lack personal jurisdiction just sort of confused by your aren't right and this case the jurisdiction that we're talking about is it's it doesn't quite fit into this that into this personal  but rather they just said that it's that has avoided all of yours but but what what you're arguing here that's fine in that yes but you're saying that the agency acted beyond its jurisdiction correct and was that because it question and i understand your argument about the statutory authority but and looking at the regulation why can't it be that you know a separate provision of the statute has nothing to do with a notice to appear or give his immigration court's jurisdiction authority to conduct these proceedings right and so why can't the agency have a rule that says look we're going to docket these cases with the with the immigration judge for purposes when at that point we transfer authority over asylum petitions over to the i j a we have all these administrative reasons for docketing the authority with one of these charging documents and then later on when hearing become somewhat more imminent will give the petitioner notice to appear what's the problem with organizing it that way where and where in the statute would that be precluded i do appreciate that there might be practical concerns but in this case so the so in this case that the the procedure where the the the notice to appear is started by some some incomplete version of an order to appear is issued by the department of homeland there or there are three different charging documents under the regulation that can initiate commence this proceeding with jane right correct and only one of them is a notice to appear there are two other ones right do you think that if a proceeding is started by virtue of one of be can be issued to anybody who the department of homeland security believes and charged with the police's removal and charged with removal so does that mean no it's ok to initiate a proceeding with one of those other two documents even though they don't provide time   include a notice to appear and if if they did it would be sort of weird to bring them out as the different that's what your honor i do believe the the other the other charging documents in this case are outside that that defined by the statute is somehow a different document than a notice to appear that's defined by the regulations which does not wish which which says the information about initial proceeding should only be provided where are so far rejected this argument from assume you would say they are all incorrect correct that is that is that is our position and argument is that those those cases following st because they base their decisions on the regulation promulgated by the attorney general which is eight c f r one thousand and three point one eight and it based on my reading of those of those cases i don't think that they directly considered whether that regulation is valid or whether as we argue that regulation is  so in order so for so how does this an israeli court in that case never use the term that you use repeatedly and and your briefs which is jurisdiction they never speak in terms of ultraviolet pain issues for the court it is not only the result but also those portions of the union necessary for the result which are binding that that citation to that that comeback was asian comes from the nine hundred and ninety six dollars supreme court seminal tri say that the defect in this notice to appear was not that it didn't give the time and place but instead that it didn't do something that is listed in the regulations say there's a typo in the address of the immigration court the government's position is that that would mean number but there's another section of the statute that gives immigration courts jurisdiction over removal proceedings it's not one thousand two hundred and twenty nine but it's in there what did immigration courts already have their stiction what the statute provides is that they have the authority so it never uses the word jurisdiction it uses the work authority over and ask that well that's what you're calling i say that it's funny to talk about jurisdiction in this administrative law context but college restriction call it authority they already have it right they and it doesn't say richmond virginia such and such and such and such a time it says at the city and a date in time to be determined later which is i think that's what the regulation that's so when the st one is followed with with the information to come out later this is the immigration where you're getting that the regulation the i thought your it's the argument was the regulation is satisfied by an m t a that doesn't comply with the statute because those are two different requirements and can be cured you have your right eye wants to cure i don't understand where the could give of that decision was that they say that this is what's required to comply with the regulation and the statute and i get the part where you need the nd i want to comply with the statute but on your reading of the regulation i don't understand your argument that the that if it was not practicable for d h just to give that information in the st sentence of the notice to appear at the immigration judge has the responsibility to send a notice of hearing do you have any other situation where you can tell me that how is if the statute gives them authority slash jurisdiction why do you need something to explain why isn't this just a procedural rule that says here's how you don't get a case and once it started all the asylum stuff goes over there not just so we're just doing some house why isn't this just a procedural housekeeping why does it have to be about charges diction i don't understand why it's in the government's interest to argue oh no if you mess up any portion of this of the more correct way of framing how we would see this issue and with that then because in this case mr zambrano received his notice to appear on october th two thousand and thirteen while detained that information prior to that he would have a hearing and lock in ga it did not say the date and time and it's possible was not practicable at that time because between that date on october th when he received the notice or if the government's position is that congress has not provided i g s with jurisdiction to conduct these hearings i think we have a big problem because agencies are not allowed to give themselves jurisdiction so if you are really standing here telling us you get to do that i don't think agencies get to explain when their own jurisdiction basts and they search very weird to have an agency effectively limit its jurisdiction if i read that statute is congress provides the authority for the immigration courts just how that authority vests is the question and that in the regulations and well the statute does provide here is that an expressed allegation of authority to the attorney general to establish the framework to govern jurisdiction they just mean claim finally right and i see my time is ending so if if there are no further questions of i may wrap up so thank you for your time we agree that the statute provides jurisdiction but it regulation immigration court doesn't have authority over just anybody who is a non citizen if i'm a non citizen even if i answered without inspection and that i've never been issued a notice to appear i don't think there is there i think it's quite clear that the immigration court could not issue an order of removal or a decision saying that on a movable without me actually being interim of proceedings and the plain language of the statute  could simply just tell a non citizen your i'm all proceedings now and then they could start getting mail from the immigration court that says you have to show up at such and such a time and they would probably do it because it has all the the parent trappings appear that comports with the immigration nationality act and now before probate of we probably all would have that a document that says notice to appear and have all the information of a notice regarding the regarding the regarding the the government's position on on on what this the whether regulation actually does i think i think the government delegation of authority that the attorney general is able to is able to say how the how the our jurisdiction best of the immigration court to the extent that the attorney general is delegating his own authority the term notice to appear is specifically in this defined by the statute so our position is that doesn't leave any room for a gap filling or elucidating about what i notice to appear it is which that's the reason that our whether lots of times were regulations spell out in do more specificity and do what the statute says and i agree with that i think that for instance if he if the  attorney general says as an actual requirement on top of what the statute says you also need to include the a number that would be part of part of the attorney general's proper authority to say that that that that this that this that this definition that says there's all these requirements we're going to take out one of those requirements and say that it's only required where practicable that would be beyond the attorney general's regula the department of homeland security has not has not has not all of that regulation either the part of homeland security has not provided initial hearing date for almost anybody it's not it's not just that they haven't done it where practica be a computer stuck down on something that doesn't work that would stop them doing it not that they would just say we can never really do it it's not that easy so therefore it's not