a hearing when the hearing had been rescheduled and therein lies the difference from some of the cases cited by the government and its brief and that i'd like to distinguish to the court you ought to notice so there's i agree there is no question they got the notice in this situation the notice they received from the from the immigration court is the only on time you receive this notice it seems to to some extent to stretch credulity to say or i received this notice it appears to them it appears that is knows the june but let me compare it to the understands and is noticed in english is sufficient then how can it be an excuse that's beyond the aliens control that he can't understand the individual in this case for the salazar to see that he has essentially a third grade education a very limited education even ignoring the math the fact that there is no obligation to put the matter an interpreter and i think having the client the responded that there is an interpreter speaking the respondents language that the most familiar with giving them the information about when like next court hearing is what happens then when we when the immigration ability to understand what is going to happen next is entirely dependent upon that moment when he opens up the mail and looks at it and interprets it whatever it is when interpret it and i think in this  what makes it the exceptional circumstance in this case is the fact that essentially the the notification occurs in a there's a reference that if the motions make it they'll be filing a petition for cancellation there's some issue from looking at the different notices to appear as to when the data ventry has but i did notice looking so he needs the tenure criteria as a nonpermanent resident i cannot tell you whether or not the family salazar would have had a qualifying relative be that a parent who was a u s citizen but for the number of the respondents here the courts are correct afforded and there's no question here that petitioners received notice and that that notice complied with the requirements of the statute the the the second point and i'll move on to my reasonably thought that the hearing would be june it's kind of an unusual circumstance so there's some justification for thinking that they really thought it would be  afforded where a person is provided notice of the hearing and afforded an opportunity to attend that hearing and that's exactly what happened here petitioners received the notice in english with a common english abbreviation for the date and missed and failed to attend the few process was afforded because they had the opportunity to attend that proceeding and failed to do so his do anything in the regulations indicates that the month should be spelled out your honor there's nothing in the regulations that indicates that the months should be spelled out but there  the regulations require certain information to be contained in notice including the when when the hearing will take place and the consequences of failing to appear which i would also note that petitioners had noticed they had all notice of the consequences of failing to appear from attending their first hearing they receive subsequent written notice on two occasions of consequences of failing to appear and so forth were fully informed of what would occur and  their discretion and due process was afford different languages and respond aliens who come from different lands that putting the month in spelling out fully would be a more of the first the first notice that they were sent had