the salon versus holder case says two thousand and fourteen we take no position on the current circuits regarding treatment of premature petitions generally and then in the foot no it cites on the one brief is that you're saying that counsel was was not notified of this as to the time that the hearing would be help but it seems to be clearly  those one question maybe between the two of you which is how much difference does the jurisdictional argument make other issues what issues can't be reached via the  the first issue contains arguments that we tried to make saying that you know she she did not receive notice and i think th sykora to find your station under for us we'll look for example at the the twenty eight thousand decision by the it seems to cover pretty much the same territory that was covered before are there issues that you have concluded can be reached only through only if we would determine that the premature filing the prematurely filed petition in response to what ultimately became the b twenty seventeen decision are there issues that that can't be reached via the the later petition or if possible i would like to get back to you under a bottle because your and it's really more merit space or maybe your colleague can speak to that but i understand the jurisdictional issue is there and i've struggled with it so for th discussed orally so if even if there's something wrong with the belt on the suspenders of oral notice a notice given to counsel sufficient we would argue that that no your honor ray notice must ambiguity even if you would read that form in a way that says eight am is not clear if you're given it at a hearing where the date and time is announced and your counsel's  takes place at the same time it's not a very persuasive position it seems to be to say that well she didn't get proper notice of the time so asking of the court to look  notice to appear with four allegations correct and there was an attack in two zero seven right doesn't original minnesota original right for some reason june alleges a new charge or new allegation and then checks the box it's in lieu of those set forth in the original charging document correct but is there anything in the wrec or miscarriage and possibly other forms of relief we don't actually don't know why the government decided to change the orignal n t a and change the date she came to this country as a minor so so based on the record she's know fortunately i didn't really digest all these documents until recently but it is a requirement that somebody who's in proceedings has to be informed notified of the charges this court pointed out they relied on the reasoning this court reasoning in bringing on finding that it's a null of the two consider a premature petition because there is no final order if we do that what issues are taken off the table understood it the second petition or it wasn't untimely in the sense of it responded after the b i a twenty eighteen decision but the b i felt it was on time because well more than ninety one hundred eighty and that's true for both of them so so both of them are untimely in terms of too long since twenty eleven whenever it was to try to terms of coming to this court the problem with the first one is it was prematurely filed the argument isn't that it was too late it was too early and i don't know of any similar problem with the second one so in terms of this court's jurisdiction it seems to me if if there's no issue about this court's jurisdiction over the second petition and of the second petition winds up in compassing all the same issues that were raised in the first that is a really matter whether we have jurisdiction over the first because we get jurisdiction over the early it says thirty days after and if you look at stone stone says that you have to look at the statutory provisions specifying the timing of review the mandatory and jurisdictional not subject to equitable tolling strict fidelity to the statutory terms like i said one day late they're out so why should you allow people to file way or early and it also goes against being so very specific about the issue that you're seeking out and this court had taken no action figures well i think as she did not unlike all of the other cases she is not appealing from an order she's appealing from the denial of a stay in sheboygan you say there's no jurisdiction over the denial of a stay so would you be reversing sheboygan and your cases and now allowing people to file petitions off of stays and holding them that doesn't make sense  her proceeding before the board when she filed the first motion to reopen the denial of the motion to reopen when that issue when she thought her second motion to reopen and the denial issue she had counsel so she could have just asked her counsel she she had an attorney all before us can be resolved without any significant impediments in the second motion to reopen yes yes but you wouldn't be you know that she admits to those charges right yes if we get where it is but some point she doesn't miss try one of the proceedings where she appears she does admit those right given a new date for tobar but there's something else that happens on that date on the twenty third of june as far as i can tell which i want you know and help me understand the significance of it which is there is an additional continued to october twenty seventh she was represented by counsel ok so she's continued so ok so but is there anything the reflect that she was ever admitted or denied or it says here in lieu of those set forth in the original charging document what does it mean so on page two twenty two at eighteen dash seven to zero three four in your page with page one eighty two one eighty one are you talking about her declaration you know it's it's the it's the order that you were referring to earlier i think you got them so i have to go few more pages i'm sorry it's the eight a yes and it's referring to it refers to based on her admission at a prior hearing they responded admitted the factual allegation it would appears that would have been the june twenty third two thousand  so that that would have been the last time she had a hearing and then she failed to show up for the next one and that that june twenty third hearing she admitted to the new allegation apparently because the day had a man can we tell for sure  we can only tell by what's in the record and we know that it was a master calendar hearing and and that she denied it and i guess we would have some record if its something was denied there would be something in the record ok and remember she was represented by counsel yes or him or him but they were contemplating another hearing correct that would have been the merits hearing that she f think it had any underlying any anything other than what i referenced in the page in the record i don't think we had anything else other than that she never use or fifteen days in jail for it she never presented arguments relating to hardship with respect to her family this is a woman who was living in the united states for years and years as has his four children one has schizophrenia and they are american citizens and she would be sent back to el salvador and the children would be remain here well i mean it's her choice whether she wants her children to remain here or go back with her it's a choice that's her that would be her choice so do you have any further questions with respect to either of the two position now thank you and also conceded to do with them availability then the government should not have been changed to eliminate the alleged date of entry and the other allegations don't change i'm not sure how that impacts upon her remove had no lawful status that she had entered without inspection the date of entry is irrelevant to the question of whether she had entered without inspection and that's the basis for the remove ability but she never could you know  then said she in the record suggests she conceded to that a long time before and i don't see a challenge to that any place certainly not in the motion to reopen the challenge there all has to do with whether her entry and coming from where she came from so we see lots of these cases and we see hearings where those become the source of the contest nothing happened and so the