and let me remind counsel for appellant that if you wish to reserve some time for or for rebuttal you may do so but you're your own master of the time you have to keep an eye on the clock  d withdraw in order to save your time so the st case will hear is  good morning your honor submit please the court my name is injure youngins on behalf of petitioner your honor this case should be remanded to the b i a for instructions consistent with this court's opinion in lopez  your honor this court this case should be remanded to the the ira for instructions consistent with this court's opinion in lopez v bar lopez v bar held that pople was overruled and that notice to appear that did not contain the required information was insufficient to stop the time bar despite the fact that a later notice of hearing had been served by the immigration court which is unlike peru peru he didn't give the moves at all and therefore was lost in absentia here the man actually got moves and went to his hearing and we represent himself doesn't make a difference your honor it does not make a difference for purposes of the time stop rule for purposes of the time stop rule the notice to appear that serve or an amended notice to appear that contains all of the sufficient information is sufficient to stop time for purposes of cancellation of removal since this court our deference as being more limited than it perhaps had been applied before judge callahan's dissent specifically says that the court should have given a greater weight to the opinion of the b i a not only that it says that the court should have given reasons for why it did not defer to such an opinion it sounds like you're arguing about whether lopez was correct that we as a three judge panel can't question whether lopez was correct or right so i'm not sure why you're arguing about whether the majority or the dissent was correct your honor i understand that this case is on for a petition for rehearing we if the court accepts that  lopez is correct then the case should certainly be remanded consistent with local as was done in the procedural history and lopez v bar well we might need to hold this case until the petition for a rehearing is resolved in lopez i could imagine that but i don't think we as a three judge panel have any ability to reconsider lopez the only your honor i believe that you're seeing is consistent with the procedural rules of the court in that case that it should be  because of the court's decision in pereira that came in an intervening time period in addition to that litigation in this matter commenced long before the litigation at that any circuit court regulatory scheme that's laid out concerning notices to appear that was discussed in current gifty was sufficient to cure any problems with the initial notice to time please the court when there was a rigorous and i represent the respondent in this matter the respondent petitioner expression he withdrew his cancellation claim from the board's consideration amounting to at the very least a rd year to exhaust that claim and all as far as the issues in the case regarding the inspection at the border his the questioning by the border patrol agents was part of the routine border procedures what do you mean he  withdrew his cancellation when when did that happen in his brief to the board your honor for the footnote on page seven of the administrative record he states that he's no longer appealing the cancellation application not sure when he found as you found his brief in two thousand and twelve so yes you're on well so it seems like i'm sorry go ahead i didn't make a difference well your honor back during his proceedings or from the immigration judge the immigration judge brought up the issue of the judge based on the fate of the quavers caspar rule however the immigration judge still addressed it and then found that he didn't meet the stop time requirement on appeal to the board in his brief through counsel petitioner said he was no longer appealing his pereira so i don't understand how you can use this footnote to say that he wasn't trying he just was acknowledging that the law was against him which it no longer is what he presented no argument on the issue your honor and under bear on this the failure to exhaust lopez on that issue now were guarding the two hundred and thirteen the agents were and needed were obligated to ask questions to determine what happened with the smuggling situation at the border it was standard border practice and there were there were no issues with that petitioner never challenged the contents of the thirteen alleging that was incorrect or that he didn't make the statements so the immigration judge properly admitted to thirteen into evidence which is stablished is remove ability petitioner never made a request for administrative closure so that also is not exhausted plus it fails to comply with matter  the frank recognition by live again that he doesn't have a claim which was and law should bar him from reason a claim now of the law's been changed effectively he abandoned the useless claims yes your honor however immigration judge did point out the issue the issue underlying perera petition is counsel had the opportunity to address that issue and chose not to and and this specific ordinarily with a change in the law yes the exhaustion would not be an issue of something subsequently changed to that degree however this council had over a year to identify this issue and raise it and then chose not to preserve the claim at all in light of this or just raised he would have had a rule against the position right and of laws as to the time yes your honor he would have and that's why we say we maintain that if you decline to play exhaustion you should wait for the resolution of lopez here because the law for close is that claim they're both thinking very honestly in the best through sions of profession and so why shouldn't the petition to withdraw that issue since it would stop wasting time i probably would have been inventing this argument if he had just left it totally out of his brief but by affirmatively stating that he was not pursuing this cancellation claim that's different but he doesn't really say he's not pursuing it he just says in light of recent press he's false precedent wrong but in light of recent president decision he's not contesting his eligibility and he cites cases that are he thinks they're foreclosing him so i don't see it's not like he says i no longer interested no he does not say he's no longer interested your honor but he does remove the claim from the board's view that's the basis for exhaustion i mean i would have thought including this footnote helped him show that he was still interested not if he hadn't mentioned it all maybe you could say it seems like he's not interested but he's clearly saying i'm still interested i'm just foreclosed by precedent the statu requires petitioner present the issue to the board for this court to be able to review it he did not do so that's the crux of our job but that's what he's asking for read and for now right so he can present it to the board yes your honor and that depends on the fate of the lo honor i think that the department of justice position invites litigants as your honor pointed out to include every potential issue that is settled law that could potentially be changed by the supreme court within the inner being months