boys i'm sorry the issue is whether the immigration judge acted arbitrarily capriciously and violated the law when he refused to real mr rance case is duran was not represented at the time that this decision was made by the immigration judge she subsequently promptly hired someone right after she was notified about the decision of the judge the record contains just a clear indication that there was an erroneous address in th at the o r they had twenty fourth place instead of to twenty fourth place the second notice that was sent to her which was the decision got to her approximately two weeks after it was indicate that the postal person had a little difficulty finding which gives supports to the fact that the whoever it was the tried to do deliver the first one might have had the same or most likely had the same difficulty and it's possible she had been in the immigration system quite extensively with in terms of you know she had been here seventeen years it had another incident of a wrong address she disclosed her address to the ins so she she wasn't hiding from anybody and so there was she showed all the reasons why if she got a notice she would have shown up yes i just i guess i'm wondering if maybe the issue was simply that the immigration judge seemed to apply the wrong standard correct because she says well that was constructive notice right i don't know what constructive service of the noticed yes seems it would be to me if there had  been certified mail and someone had someone a responsible person had signed that certified mail and returned it and the government had that in the file and that would be constructive service you know the person denies they received  at the immigration judge level the at the day that in the motion the government filed no opposition that's correct there was no opposition to that motion and ordinarily a judge would have under those circumstances and there he he also can confirms and you know stipulated to the fact that i noticed was sentenced to twenty fourth place instead of twenty two twenty fourth place that would be on page twenty five of i ask a question i couldn't i can't figure out from these cases you have the notice to appear and it has an address in it yes and according to them the notice to appear itself as the correct address is that right  yes but this one has the wrong address the notice that told her she was deported had the wrong address and i don't know how that happens and that's a decision had the wrong address but did the notice also have the wrong address there is no way to know that interesting to know that there is there is something in the of warnings and stuff like that and i don't think this one goes into a window the one from the court goes into a window ok so just so we're clear the one that she didn't get  she's saying she didn't get the notice to appear correct correct she didn't get anything before the noticed this order heard or she got the decision which was the notice that your being that morning before but before that she claimed she didn't get anything and what  normally would have gotten was the m t a the notice to appear correct and is that what is on page forty one of the act serv court sent the last one was to twenty fourth place and i don't understand where the e o r start staff would have gotten that twenty fourth if the record had this in it clearly you know the immigration this was sent by the i understand that your honor but you carry with you you don't have that information you don't correct if you use regular mail but in most cases you do get the letter back saying return to sender or incorrect address or something because you make i think a very good point however the service never came in and said we didn't get this back in other words she filed her affidavit in her motion and then it's sitting there that's the only evidence before the immigration judge to try to figure this out no one from the government says you know what she may have that affidavit but i can tell you we usually get the stuff back we never got anything back we've searched our files so you don't have that evidence correct that's correct we don't know it so we can't consider that so now the real question is if there's some presumption that if you stick something in the mail it gets there has she rebutted that enough with her affidavit and her information and the transposition of they have separate mailings and everything else they're not related in that sense and in this case she indicates in her affidavit that it's presumed because the incorrect address was on her immigration judge's decision that she eventually received the same probably happened but there's no indication that that happened but there's no indication that i mean in other words she that's correct i mean that's coming from the court so to speak and the other one's coming from the administrative your right yeah and asked me to be in correct address or anything like that they're two separate entities it would have mailed them separately it's unclear why there was an incorrect address with the immigration judges court but for whatever reason it was delivered to her maybe not as timely as it could have been but there's indication that she did receive it she admits that she received it right why isn't this like this is good in him case where they say look if if you put in an affidavit and you're the kind of person that's sort of been in the system you know then you don't get the notice you've been in the system you kind of been dealing with the system straight up until this point that that's enough they say in that case to at least i have an evidentiary hearing on the matter why isn't that i don't think that she's been very straight with this with this system i mean she got her visa petition based on fraud indicated that she wasn't married get a hearing that's really the question real simple should she get the hearing to determine whether she got a notice from the i j a can say look i just don't believe you then we have deference to that well your honor the only application she had before  the service at that time was her naturalization application it was only later that she filed after the an abstention order had been issued that she files her cancellation application this case is definitely different from salt and singing so that they could apply for certain relief and in this case that just wasn't the case i mean she was denied naturalization but she didn't have any other application pending before it before this court at that time what do you think it then how can she be sure i mean what more could she have offered i honestly don't know your honor but but the lightning you know says that basically regular mail is ok and that we have to presume that the post office did their duty unless and she's shown evidence to the contrary which the fact that the immigration judge's decision with the wrong address was delivered shows that that the postal service in that area was very before you go i want to ask a question there we have five immigration cases and we have three different lawyers from washington d c which involves our lot of travel money and i don't understand why when there are several immigration cases on appeal way out here in california that one lawyer can handle them your honor i think this has been raised by this court  before when we go i haven't raised and i'm sorry it when we get assigned these cases we usually get assigned four or five cases to argue but this court often drops cases and so we pick other cases up and try to do as many as possible but sometimes these cases are dropped at the last moments or other conflicts arise so we do try and consolidate as many as possible and do as many as we possibly can but i mean we could have sent an attorney for each case but it's the role of a department of justice to different term and how it wants to be represented in the court i think they've made a good effort generally to double up on lawyers we know there's like three panel sitting this week we don't know what other cases you've argued as you point out cases get dropped you considered the petitioner was not represented she was not personally served with a notice to appear and because she had not previously been in court she was not informed of the consequences of not appearing in the requirement to report her address transfer the government refers to the psalter and check to cases that they had a history of this but on the side of this respond she has a history of being in the united states for a very long time she has been here twenty one years as of today and her family are all here her children she came in in the wrong category  she got married before she by graded her father was not a residence he was not a citizen he was only a resident that this situation is so totally contrary to logic  criminal record and for that matter what she probably had was a conflict between her religion and the us laws where she felt obligated to get married rather than living in sin because she was a catholic and  she decided to choose the way to heaven rather than the way to the u s i guess decent lady and her one mistake doesn't make her a hardened criminal or a chronic liar or anything like that so the judges presumption that her it seems actually thought she w