and we'll proceed to our next q this morning and that is do versus bar allow me to think this court who are not making me lie in this pandemic from europe to chicago and denying the response motion to cancel this oral arguments so that i may speak to your honor's today and regardless of how you decide this facts you can glean from the st circuit's decision and herrera did not win on his facts he won on the law so the facts from para cannot be compared for for our criminal reason that's how i smell him from the criminal case and then he didn't appear at his st appearance which would have been in boston and immigration court  with him that year well in two thousand and seven which was his scheduled appearance as saying that he didn't receive notice of it but he received the n t s and so he knew he was in proceedings so credit rest he should have informed eyes through later notice and that that would effect a cancellation proceeding not jurisdiction but a cancellation proceeding and the supreme court has decided it's going to address that issue in knees chavez so i want to know  whether your case is different from needs chavez whether you have anything to add through that lens well your honor the two step process for curing  are circumstances under which somebody might forfeit the right to complain about a two step process maybe this is one of them maybe this is not one of them but whether that career and there's a conflict circuits about how to deal with this two step process that the agency believes it can undertake and that some courts are saying no you can't the statute doesn't work that way at least for the cancellation process and there are questions about what these are wave a bill or forfeit a bill issues there are a bunch of issues in the world since pereira right so what has happened with the other circuits not the circuit is that they have gone circuit just like the nd of the th should move forward and comply with the supreme court and the supreme court will likely decide the same that they made clear in her eyes and they will react the side of this again that the right because the n t a does a proper n p a does cut off the time so would is there a duty on the person who receives the defective n t a to call that floor to the attention of the immigration authorities didn't have a date because that was a lot the type so that was not available to her she could not work at something that it would be frivolous to do ok ok my and that's why she she applied right away after herrera mediately within the ninety days of the change of law are saying i didn't assume she was aware that there was some issue she brought it to their attention i understand your position which was as close to timely issues capable of immigration court as she was asked to she fought very recently for her asylum case even though she lost and she did not file any frivolous applications like of a cancellation which would be frivolous at the time if you if she did  opportunity to apply for cancelation that the supreme court has given her the option to do now by changing the stop time rule and and so she did it at the st opportunity she is she fully qualifies for cancellation she can only do that in proceedings grounds for a motion to reopen and what's most important is that there's a change while here which this circuit has rightly held that is a proper reason to to reopen that all right thank you if you'd like to reserve the rest of your proceedings and waited some years later to challenge twenty she doesn't have any doubt the argument though particularly since we may be taking a fresh look at all of these things like the supreme court's activity what about the argument that of your point because it was the case that came up in the wake of the bailey decision where every single court of appeals had ruled that the then meaning in the statute of using a firearm was a rather broad meeting and the supreme court than than otherwise your honor i would have a couple of points so that the st is that's not certainly not how the court read that was only in chen and we think chen is indistinguishable in a number of respects to this case chen the petitioner did not seek to make a prayer argument or seek cancellation and so after prayer was decided long after the removal proceedings had completed same as here in chen you know the court said that that was not excusable and i would also point out that i believe they said you know in the rd circuit some people were making a purchase argument a number of years before the per case ultimately came forward and there was no argument made here so and then this there's always this tendency on the part of the government to punish people for not throwing everything including the kitchen sink into their arguments and i really have some of the be careful what you wish for feeling about this you guys would be very busy if everybody has to scour every negative supreme court decision and say and obey the way just in case the court changes its mind here's our argument on this or worse every it's every situation which all of the courts of appeals are against you and there's statutory language such as the language defining a notice to appear so is this is this the burden the government really thinks parties have of your honor i understand but again i think that this is case is near identical to and i said we might be needing to take another look at china itself is because a higher authority than ourselves is going to be looking at this issue and even ch find good faith all the rest of that may need another look i apologize john i should have addressed also that nd part of your question news travels versus bar at least i can't speak to what the supreme court will ultimately hold but neither party is arguing for for sure there because petitioner mister nish chavez did raise a pereira type argument after pereira when he was before the board in his initial proceeding he said it will be lucky with this and i mean that it was after pereira so of course i would certainly have changed in number of times between three different venues and so she can't show prejudice from the notice to appear itself not providing that date and time initially and april of two thousand and one because she participated in nine years worth of proceedings which is very similar to chen which i guess was ten years worth of proceedings and at no point did she raise it as the court explained in chen the government would actually be prejudiced because had she raised the you know issues with the notice to appear then the immigration judge might have thrown it out the government might have then provided a single step notice to appear so i just i think this case is highly like chan and also i would point out in or she sense jago itself the court you know ruled on forfeiture and focused on the lack of prejudice there other than that if the court has no questions i'm happy to rest on our for e all right thank you mister glover miscue you had a little bit of time but yes thank you thank you service notice of hearing that happened after the notice to appear would have would have would have reinstated the stop time rule and then st denying the titian o