they have please the court the statute governing the initiation of removal proceedings requires that a non citizen be served a notice to appear specifying the time and place of his st removal hearing here mr robey allowed even if the government subsequently informs the non citizen of the time of his hearing through a follow up document the coroner teesside jago also explain what should happen when a non compliant notice to appear has been an issue when if the non citizen time we objects the immigration judge should quassia the notice to appear or failing to comply with the statute and not allow the removal proceedings to go forward until a new compliant notice claim processing rule but the b s a refused to enforce the rule on the grounds that mr avila had not shown that he was harmed by the government's failure to follow the rule that decision cannot stand when a claim processing rule is timely raise the absence of harm by itself is not a valid basis for refusing to follow the rule isn't the harm element or the prejudice element just relevant to the forfeiture analysis well that's correct only raised that's correct your honor that's what the court said and that's what subsequent decisions have said that if the non citizen doesn't make a timely objection then and he must show that he here and if so what are the consequences it has a possibility your honor so the question in these charges is it sort of the answer follows is a very straightforward application of the court's holding  of the time and place of the removal hearing is an integral part of a notice to appear on the question in his child as is does the notice to appear does it have to be a single document or is the statute allows multiple documents so here as the court already recognized energy santiago after her it's clear that the notice you have here require is the time and place to be included along with the rest of the information in the notice to appear  so we would say that the there is no reason necessarily to await the outcome in these charges here  documents could cure it would that even matter to our analysis under chattery given that it wasn't raised it would not matter your honor the court or the court would still be required to remain and then there would be some question about what would happen on re example up is a filing deadline but there are many other examples of similar sorts of procedural prerequisites to suit just like the one at issue here for example just last year in fort bend county the supreme court considered the statutory requirement that a charge of discrimination be filed with the e e o c prior to a litigant commencing a titles of an employment discrimination suit and the court said there's sort of procedural requirement inquiry on top of that no i do not your honor and respond it has not come up with any case of claim processing rule that a court refused to comply simply on the grounds that the for the reason the rule had  harm and we are aware of no examples either so so the nature of rules of these type of this type is that sometimes the consequences for the party who fail to follow the rule are very serious and sometimes might not be present for the other party but the rule is still followed and here in fact just because of the nature the rule the substance of the rule the consequences for the government are not so serious when the timely objection is raised at the beginning of the removal proceedings the government can simply turn its error by issuing a new no history appear that includes the time and place information and so it's not prevented from ever seeking to remove the non that is out of proportion with the only procedural error that he has identified but if you're if you misuse it yes let's back up because st of all there you know ortiz santiago very carefully distinguish  between this failure to issue a notice to appear that complies with the statutory requirements as a jurisdictional problem we said no it's not one of those it is though an important claims processing rule which from time to time could make a great difference to an alien sometimes it may sometimes wouldn't but it's a claims processing rule that has to be thought a load i am baffled that the government when this was immediately pointed out by mr  didn't just issue a new notice to appear why they why issued another you notice of hearing it would have been the most minuscule burden for the government to a fix this problem and going forward have ensured that its procedures assure compliant notices to appear well i wish i had a good answer for you on that the record in this particular case is pretty tarus as i'm sure your hon but immigration judge just basically said tonight and that was and no other issue was raised and i don't know if it's because he i'm sorry the immigration judge she did not explain why she denied his timely the board found it timely and the board at least gives a reason which is a bad reason for refusing to give effect to this mandatory rule even then the in all of this but all you have to do is get that date nailed down right before you issue the notice to appear instead of sometime after there's a real risk that a incomplete notice to appear might not be followed promptly a notice of hearing it seems to have been here but suppose it was a month suppose it was two months people move different things happen there could be slippage in the post office forwarding things  not a trivial matter and i just don't understand why the government doesn't just you should notice is to hear that satisfy the statute well i believe i mean i don't have exact answer about what happened in this particular case but i don't believe it's because the government didn't want to include an include a date things have changed since this has happened and now it's my understanding at least in the chicago area that they exactly the office of immigration review provides a month the dates ahead of time to the enforcement and removal office a v h s in order to be able to now provide those dates but  as and i would remind the court that responded did try to remain and this case why i thought you know i had knowledge that there was i think the concern was to get this established since the re manned was just to say for purposes of considering or to santiago which had already been decided by the time the board got there so reconsider what you've already reconsidered well i probably what would happen i reached out to d h as they would continue to detain him unless for some reason and immigration in the future does give him a bond which might not be likely given his criminal history but if that's the case his litigation should he remained detaining it will take another maybe three to six months before the immigration court and if there's an appeal another six to nine months on top of that and again in this case for all practical purposes he is  but it is his right it is that's assuming that it is a not it is mandatory and not a non mandatory claims processing rule which is outlined in our brave in order to santiago it's my understanding that based on the facts and arguments presented in that case clearly the facts presented that it was an untimely untimely objection and on top of that which are the parties were arguing about that jurisdictional ramifications of whether or not the omission of the hearing date was it was a jurisdictional issue so there was no benefit of briefing at that time to address what you know where we are living in an era in which statutory language really matters we don't just throw out parts of it and regulations we don't try to nd guess what congress was thinking about when they wrote it they told what needs to be there you might think they made a silly decision which case i suppose they could change and go back to the version of statute that existed before i or ira but right now that's a start because i understand your honor our point as that foreign claims processing role to be mandatory it has to invoke the clear intent that the courts are without authority to make exceptions that the rules are in fact form as to preclude exceptions and the of the rule leaves no room for flexibility and based on the reading of this particular text it doesn't it's not inflexible and the fact that else do you think the h s can delete from the list  that that is and i agree with counsel opposing counsel that that case is tied pretty specifically to the stop time role in that case so there is a chance that they might say yes or no whether or not  and whether there's an umbrella rule that an n c a a has to have all the elements in one document rather than two documents but there's also a chance that the court might narrow it just as they did in peoria which set this is based on a a notice to appear meaning one of them well if you when you start arguing about whether or not a there's a quotation mark around they are not in a i would say that's not really a clearance h if a clear intent would be like the situation we have say an eberhard in that case the court found that criminal procedure rule thirty three dollars b two wasn't mandatory soley because it required that a new trial must be filed within seven days and went on to also explain that rule forty five dollars b said provided specifically that that deadline could not be extended and there's nothing really here in this particular statute that says that all and if congress had wanted everything to be in one single document or be served don't one single day for example the pro bono list is not on notice to appear on assuming it's attached to the notice here they could have done that and the fact that passports a found a two step process prior to peoria and even after was sufficient also shows there's no clear intent to have it all in one document ok your time is up so thank you very much and thank you for your last year where the court was very clear what it meant by a mandatory claim processing rule is a rule that can never even in the most compelling case for an equitable exception it is not susceptible to an exception the court does not need to decide here whether this claim processing rule is mandatory or not because the government never argued that it had an equitable basis for relief from the rules in force and second the relief that  there so the only way to put him in the position he would have been if the immigration courts had simply followed the law is to allow him a nd chance and respondent does not argue that that would be futile they