of eligibility for cancellation of removal ition or argues that this issue was already decided by the supreme court in rare of the sessions and that the board's holding in matter of mendoza hernandez is contrary to that ruling or also in terms of the forfeiture arguments argues that he raised this on direct appeal and so therefore under supreme court precedent any change in the law that occurred during the pendency of a direct appeal should be applied and lastly that the forfeiture arguments and analysis in or t santiago do not apply to his case because he is not raising a claim processing rule for i think current returns you mock out for a moment can you just go back to your last sentence yes your honor in regards to is pending before the supreme court i think that that's a good question it may be wise to put this case in advance the oral forfeiture was linked to the claims process and to the notice to appear so i am not sure i understand your argument that claims processing doesn't apply here because you're not talking about stiction we didn't find claims processing because of the jurisdictional issue we found claims processing because the notice to appear was a claims processing ru stop time issue was not and was not at issue and in his case even argue that because a notice to appear did not include the time and the place  jurisdiction over his case and the court found that he should have raised that in front of the immigration judge and that he wasn't prejudiced because all th us had to do was just reissue the notice to appear with the correct time and date included petitioner in this case is is talking about the his eligibility for cancellation of removal and the stop time rolls so the stop appear that is a claim that involves what she could bring up substantively before the immigration judge it might be a different claim but it's still triggered by the notice to appear which is what we found in ortiz and again and chen people are isn't a claims processing rule that can be forfeited if you don't raise it at the time before the immigration judge when you appear before that judge based on the notice to appear yes your honor but this time rule was not at issue in archie santiago so you're saying it would be for the notice to appear we would analyze it differently under the stop time well as opposed to the jurisdictional question yes your honor it's it's another statute that wasn't at issue in or it's a different data but the triggering of that is still the notice to appear yes and how those two statutes interact with each other was directly decided by the supreme court  it had timely raised the challenge and i think that the purchase analysis is very different so if under jurisdiction if the notice to appear did not include the time in the case the v h s could easily share that by including that information and the ultimate outcome of seedings would not be any different under the stop time rule the prejudice deals with the immigrant not being able to bring a substantive playing in defense of his removal the prejudice and  are arguments are very different when you're talking of not a procedural issue of jurisdiction that can easily be cured by including information in a charging document burgess's whether or not a person can bring relief against their deportation before the judge and the the this issue has been addressed by the rd circuit and the th circuit and we do believe that the error analysis is correct and that the prejudice analysis particularly in the  into your rebuttal time but given that pervious issue in june two thousand eight hundred seventeen days after the immigration judge in this case is there any explanation was raised his case was not yet final so his case was still on direct appeal at lord and supreme court precedent has aided that when there is a change in the law or its are obligated to apply that change while the case is on correct he'll still that's a very significant distinction in the petitioners case here as opposed to chen  board on direct appeal where his removal order is not yet final though the timing of petitioners case is very distinct from the case and should be bar and it's distinct from ortiz on track because he's not raising he's not challenging the jurisdiction it's not a challenge in at this point in the motions or remand it's it's simply that he is eligible in addition to there being different issues that they were challenging and i am out of time and i will thank you ms chon if i move on behalf of the eligibility for cancellation of removal and petitioners briefing is adamant that the forfeiture is an issue regarding for eligibility eligibility for cancellation of removal and the board although with chan ultimately found that the petitioner failed to raise the issue timely so there's no need for a mount and also your honor this is a this is a it's a fact not in dispute is that that must be shown is not the inability to show that the prejudice isn't that you didn't have the opportunity to apply pereira as petitioner argue press the prejudice must be to the fact that you haven't had the chance because of the defect and the notice you haven't had the chance to defend yourself in the removal proceedings the left of notice of the time and place in the exactly and that's because one purpose of the stop time will is to have this continuous presence calculated prior to the start of proceedings so then when the charge individual appears that individual under counsel can determine what he or she seeks in terms of relief from removal such as cancellation of remove all at the outset and so that's why this court's understanding of twelve twenty nine am seems processing really goes to the purpose of the stopped and here we have admitted time had been served in the notice to appear and received it received a notice of hearing showed up at the time and they require had counsel and then admitted no eligibility for cancellation  and so although perhaps the individual might have tried to make an argument at that point had career been decided earlier maybe maybe position or would have tried to because there's nothing in the record showing any prejudice to the petitioners ability to appear for the proceedings and adequately defend against the charges this case really is  any meaningful way for that reason with regard to your honor's question about the supreme court deciding these ch the issue an issue chavez is really just stinks because this court is examining the issue with the euro so to speak the supreme court is really looking specifically at whether congress intended notice to be in a single document also the briefing before the supreme court did not include reference to ortiz or chad and so there's no real indication now any shop has that the court will bring up this claims process and issue there and so the government doesn't believe that there's necessarily a reason to hold up just because the supreme court with regard to  petitioners asylum and withholding of removal and protection under the convention against torture claims substantial evidence in the record supports the agency's determinations  in here in regards to the prejudice the issue and miss chavez statutory interpretation was exactly what the supreme court was dealing with  heimdall and the definition of the notice to appear properly there is no reason to get to prejudice if the interpretation of his attitude is improper and just in terms of prejudice of mr bringing the sachi to congress intended at all the notice requirements be convened in one axiom and and we've seen the consequences of when the notice requirements are not put in one document is that the non citizen cannot get a subsequent notice of hearing for different reasons human error and male and congress decided that they that it should all be in one document and so