petition proceedings and i remember how important it was my parents to know what time and place of the proceedings because everything else in those documents whether are they are the allegations or the now although my now i'm going to get to the art argument although my reading of pereira like many of my colleagues is different than that of this court  time they time in place could have been a separate document whether it was attached to the u s c or it was mailed in at some other time our argument is and two different affidavits are client one that was just this past year one  from almost twenty years ago she made she claimed that she never received anything and from her a kind ask a question about that because i'm working as a certified mail receipt that is part of the immigrant part of the record that you refer seems that the decision to deny your client's application to reopen here it's a discretionary decision which i think your knowledge and then when you look at it factually it looks it looks  unfortunately for mr as like it it just has very a very thin layer of factual support given the certified mail receipt yes your honor i do and i do not challenge the court retained for a long time but but here's a question if he is what causes confusion rather if the court i would like to direct the attention of course attention to i'm sorry the panel of tension to a r two hundred and ninety two to ninety three causes great confusion it is it was crossed out by penn so it's unclear whether they came back and if that date was changed the point i'm trying to make it's not clear whether my client was sent the j the notice that was issued a major th but if i may just get back to my point is that that raises some question about whether or not the notice that was mail from the court was actually the notice for the july th court date and when you add the requirement of time and place whether you should have been with the or c or separate from the c there are questions about the integrity of the process  going back to the claim process it being rule if the litigation process was not handled properly by ad that time by the court at that time then i believe the court's position that all of this falls on the claim processing rule would actually help my client so our argument would be that that always see even though we accept the fact that the right quote questions of whether or not it should have into the time and place when it was issued but at some to see it was filed with the immigration court the record demonstrates here that miss her is was probably certain she was served personally with the order to show cause and then a notice of hearing was later sent to her was returned to the court misreads asserts that she did not have noticed for hearing but yet she does not explain the signature on the certified mail or c it's clear in the board's decision that it took note of the affidavit information in the record however it found that certified mail only receipt that she was properly served your honor here is an implicit will to this case the supreme court about the four say notice i too did not find a source of that i think the source in his brief referred to the general contents of the word should cause a notice to appear but i did not find a fourteen  this requirement even if there was the order to show cause here was she was personally served indicate her right to have an attorney to represent her and then again she would sue perceived actual personal personal