in the transcript of the proceedings it is clear that the immigration judge took over those proceedings leading the questioning and ultimately came up with a finding that the petitioner who had participated in neighborhood fights which at that time were in this case it went back to the d i m a said it's not our fault that the person is not here well it's not it's not it's not just it's not the immigration judge's fault not notify the court or present counsel of his location and he says responsibility for that according to the court rules and according to the rules yes he did you have i know that you don't want to be the fall guy here subsequent to that my phone was retained so there was no obligation for the board to notify myself because i was not attorney of the right one and the petitioners argument here  violation of due process was not harmless and in fact when the petitioner was detained for two years by a government agency it was gratian judge's decision finding that he was a persecutor was used on two separate occasions in a written i hope that in the course of your argument you will address what's a fair thing to do here just speaking for myself but may proce known address and it was mailed to his last counsel of record who had not withdrawn his appearance and nor had his new attorney entered in pairs as required by the regulations and as stated in the fourth practice manual in the eight to ten months since this since the court three mandated the case back to the fore yes but this is the first i've been on this court a long time and this is the first case that i have ever seen where someone was ordered deported in abstention after an opinion of this court it says that the agency had made a mistake in the first time that interviewed him deported and there seems to be  real unfairness here in deporting someone without giving him the day after this court is that that he should have it well as your honour's pointed out i mean the relevant issue here is in this is what claiming occurred here he's claiming error on the part of the board which the government states that there was no error in the board sending the notice to to his counsel of record and and the situation room for review was not not handled by the same council well what after a case comes that what is required under the board's rules with respect to entering a notice of change from each stage proceeding in this proceeding itself there is one council in some immigration court there is a different counsel in from the board and there is a different counsel in front of the in front of the court of appeals so the only way that the agency could whoever they wish outside of court proceedings i mean even in this court proceeding i would say just simply looking at pacer at the record of this court in this particular case there were attempted to brief to be submitted  exceptional circumstances and the it's a very i mean i'm sorry that both the such and the regulation are very clear about what type of circumstances that would that would engender well this exceptional didn't he reasonably didn't he believe that he was represented by a lawyer i mean legally i suppose you go to you you look at all of the different regulations and you say what was his fault because he didn't keep the board informed of his of his whereabouts that he thought he had a lawyer and the petitioner again so it's a relevant question there is as to whose duty it was to inform the board that she wasn't that of what the addresses were that they were supposed to be serving a not of hearing and here again the petitioner only had provided one address and in fact i would also add that in the boers practice manual they do state that even if you're worse represented that you determinations well i think that this again if you're honest pointed out this kid this kid definitely provides a very unique circumstances but i think it would be it would be very detrimental in terms of i guess i would call the the larger scheme of exceptional circumstances to state that essentially that neither the petitioner nor his counsel have to follow the agency regulations or the statute  saying that they have to enter their noses apparent before the board and that simply to remedy that that they can claim exceptional circumstances i think that there's a fine line here and between simply exceptional circumstances and the and what the petitioner is essentially claiming that the board erred in not serving him with with the with the notice of hearing the petitioners claim here that they weren't ell i would say that i mean again this is a unique circumstance because it was reminded but this type of reasoning we could be expanded to any sort of instance where there has been where there has been a change of council that the agency was when the case was due for that new gratian corps and when the board of him of immigration appeals remanded it back to the immigration court but it's titian are there i had stated she had completed a change of address form and for some reason it was given to the notice was still sent to the old address what's what distinguishes in this case is that there was no such error on the part of the agency here i mean the agency served properly and more like the case and sharma or in for a rude the only relief here that is possible for the petitioner to to achieve is something that still needs to be in front of agents the asylum