thank you christopher stander representing the petitioner margarita tray ho good morning may please the court this is an immigration case where the petitioner timely filed her motion to reopen deportation from august twenty ninth one thousand eighty eight in harlan's in texas under the nick carr act but for the immigration courts delay in adjudicating that motion some two years and nine months and then to simply put because and i disagree with the brief from the oil attorney what is under review is a motion to reopen the underlying order is in a review if it doesn't take place here in the ninth circuit it could take place in the fifth circuit it's a little bit form shopping to come here the ninth circuit on i'm coming here myself i'm forum shopping visiting and i think i don't have standing to argue of course arizona's within the one circuit i don't i don't really think that's plausible here she hasn't you know not only physically moved around but all the litigation after the next century deportation order and her was in texas to place in arizona through motions of course she was always down south in arizona the motion reopen went to texas but assuming the venue is correct here i think the merits of this case are really quite strong because of the unreadable delay that the immigration court engaged in case like the previous one where if we don't hear it into conference or a faster question here if we were to transfer it all of the arguments on the merits which appear to be you know very good arguments around them i guess i would just speak for myself and say that and i would love to have an excellent case or an argument i do i see what the court is looking had stated with a pre real id act and it's in the oil brief but our point would be as i understood debris from oil they're saying what's really in reviews to be decision from two thousand and five that in fact it's not true ultimately what is under review is even a potential order from one thousand nine hundred eighty eight and that predates all changes in the act and since  the right to seek reopening of that case came out of the car statute and was filed in such a way that what is under consideration the one thousand nine hundred eight decision in that predates the changes in the venue in the restrictions that you could not s filed to serve the application for suspension of deportation in one nine hundred ninety nine to be the top has nothing to do with it's irrelevant what they did in well on looking at the evidence and i think you know again the feed in order to file the application and perfect it so what you have there is evidence along with an affidavit of counsel because there was there were you know within my office dozens of people who were eligible for this and everybody was process this way but because of the kind of parochial way that immigration would approach things you had to pay your fees locally and there was an inability for attorneys to piano feed the individuals themselves had to pay to feed so there is evidence that eight months before the dead line the fee i paid the application is submitted to the local office to address your question is what's unreasonable is giving the two year a nine month delay and then the millions to the wrong address now they're saying well you've missed a deadline and because of that four five six years that have passed now the petitioner can't provide the evidence because it's not available any longer in the interim she went to another attorney and then returned back to present counsel once again and that's where the two thousand and five motion real thing was filed an immigration judge did find that notice was not provided to counsel now why i think a stop would be a strong argument because given that seven year passage of time the petitioner cannot provide the evidence to show that she did in fact perfect her application f torah in the motion to reopen there is evidence of the affidavit of counsel and there's also the cover letter showing eight months before that the feelings being paid in preparation for submission to the government so for those reasons i think the fisher has a very very strong argument for equitable stoppel that it's not reasonable for the immigration judge to take the position that now that they took so long to adjudicate it and then send notice to an incorrect address that now because that has deprived the petitioner the ability to provide the evidence that they're demanding what i think is also very important here is looking at the b i e s decision they never seem to address the most to reopen that was really on appeal it addressed the motion to re man in this day they never make a decision on the motion decision is i think somewhat skewed and it's really questionable what is on review before the court today is it the most reopen or just the motion or reman which is all the board really addresses in its decision technically the motion good morning nancy friedman for the attorney general as the court indicated by its questions to petitioners counsel i don't believe there's any way around the venue provision in this case which states that the petition for review should be filed in the fifth circuit as it was a hard edge and texas proceeding used transfer mandatory or discretionary in your view the transfer  think that the word the words of the transfer statute you're frying your honor to twenty eight u s c sixteen thirty one which talks about transfer it says   there's certainly no harm or what's the harm to deciding it here well the harm would be that it would it would completely ignoring the the venue statu with the ninth circuit these immigration proceedings started and were completed in the fifth circuit in harlan texas but that she has a legitimate residence in the ninth her residence doesn't had waived it yes it could have it certainly didn't in this case you know and as you're aware the government had filed a motion to dismiss or transfer or transfer right after the petition for for review was filed i believe there are cases in this court where it has found that the government did waive the possibility of a transfer but certainly not in this case you know i personally have filed dismiss or transfer and i think i think this is the first one in my experience that hasn't been granted so i was a little unclear as to look looking for case law you know most two circuits and there's there's some evidence on the petitioner side in this case is that something that you're authorized to comment one way or the other well i i wouldn't want to give you a firm yes or no because i would need to consult with our client about that but it's seems to me that the government probably would not that's true you're on a but they were the real concern of the government here more so that then where are the merits of this particular case is heard is is the fact that it would be conducted in texas would be justice in washington d c you can do it in your ears on or or san diego you do it here with the government be amenable to trying to mediate the merits of the case i guess my answer to the question have tried to stress our concern here is is the venue statute more so than you know where where the merits of the case may be adjudicated and so i'll just sum up i see my time i w and providing relief for the petitioner she is otherwise eligible for a car and nobody has ever stated that she's not if but for the timely filing in the perfection of the motion it would have been granted and she would be a lawful permanent resident so really that's what is in the petitioners best interest and certainly just as willing to engage in mediation here if this work at washington or anywhere that the government would be willing to engage in that mediation thank you thank you