even more remarkably though the government all but concedes that accepting its interpretation means the congress made significant changes to the statute in iraq for no reason at all before iraq the statute authorized the very two step notice process the government defines here it required an order to show cause but allow the government to provide the time and place of the hearing quote in the order to show cause or otherwise and quote by the time of iraq congress had good reasons to rethink that to stop notice process burdened immigration courts which were forced to resolve disputes about whether the government properly served the separate hearing notice and as this court noted in pereira it confused non citizens by forcing them to piece together information across multiple documents that could be served years apart so in iraq congress created a new form of notice a notice to appear congress largely copied the pre iraq notice provisions but crucially for this case congress cut the language authorizing the government to provide time and place information in a separate hearing notice and made that information a required part of a notice to appear the government however refused for many years to comply with that change and to avoid the consequences of that refusal and now ask this court to read that change out of the statute entirely and deprive congress of the explicit rejection of the two stop notice process of any meaning this court however should give meaning to iris changes and should hold a notice to appear like an order to show cause is a specific notice document that includes all of the information specified in the statute that is the only way to make sense of the statutes text and structure and it is the only way to read the statute that is consistent with iraq mister zimmer would  stopped time will be triggered if the alien received the two documents soon two different envelopes at the same on the same day i mean yes your honor although certainly if it's not in the same document we don't think  is the answer that if it's in two different documents it does not trigger the stop time rule and i think that the point of that is that there is no way to distinguish that situation from the situation like my clients where you receive the notice two months later are the situation in pereira where the government tried to serve a year later but you know didn't even sort of correctly or the situation on camera where the government sort of the hearing notice two years later i think what congress was doing was trying to create a clear firm rule the require that all of the information be provided together well i think you're probably right that there's no way to distinguish it but if it gets to to that absurd results that you've got two envelopes and you put them together you get him on the same day and it's got all the information that you're entitled to but that's nonetheless not a notice to appear well you're right i don't think it's absurd in the sense that congress the whole point if you that what the congress trying to solve is that that the hypothetical assumes that everything works document and it would it would be a notice to appear but i think that what congress was doing here you know the problem that congress was trying to solve was that the problems that were caused when this information was served separately and so it created this firm rule and i don't i think that it's very clear from the changes that congress made and i read that that that that's what it was doing and it wasn't showing which i but i thought your answer was to the effect that it's not a firm rule if you have two separate documents those the fact that you get them in the same ample hope i don't know it seems to be a functional analysis of whether or not notice has been given as a matter of reality i guess our position is that it all has to be provided together and i think if it's on the same envelope it's provided together i mean i think that's sort of what the idea of a document is whether it's on one pages or two pages i don't think is the question but if it's on the same and below i mean it is for all intents and purposes a single document and a way that it's not if it's if it's coming separately but again you know i don't think that what congress is doing here this idea if the government can serve two envelopes that arrive on the same day then surely you can just put all the information in one document and provide it together and i think that's really what congress intended that the government do here definition of a notice of appeal or notice to appear i'm sorry the definition is written notice and it says parents ethically in this section refer to as a notice  that the history here the sort of the action the congress took in iraq and the changes that it made would still be a compelling compelling reason that we're right but i think we would have a much harder argument but of course this court has repeatedly made clear in cases like  beyond that it is appropriate take it it is appropriate to consider the defined term itself and understanding definitional language and that's why the phrase a notice to appear is particularly important here because the again i right well the i think that under the the way pereira described this provision is that you have to define the term a notice to appear and then the definition is written notice specifying that information and again i think under cases like dobson and bond when you're when you're trying to understand the definition you know i think that the definition sort of the written notice language that you're talking about could be read either way i think that in context it doesn't explicitly require a specific notice document but nor does it explicitly authorize the government to use multiple notice documents and that's why you know under this court's precedent it's necessary to look to other contextual clues like the define the term itself like the other statutory provisions the really don't make any sense if you're not talking about a specific notice document that the statute used to authorize the government to use multiple to provide notice over the course of multiple documents used to define in order to show cause notice of specific information that did not include the time and place of the hearing and that had a separate provision that authorize the government to provide time and place information in the order to show cause or otherwise and in iraq specifically cut the language authorizing that the government provide a separate hearing notice and require time and place information to be provided as part of the notice to appear at so and on the government's view that significant on the government's interpretation of the statute that significant change to the statutes notice provisions accomplish practically nothing it didn't change the government's notice requirements at all and this court's precedents only require that significant changes to the statute be given a real and meaningful effect and the government the government's interpretation would deprive it of that and i think that's really the clearest reason why any ambiguity in the phrase a written notice needs to be resolved in it is necessarily result in favor of requiring a specific notice document which is of course consistent with the defined term itself thank you what it turns out that the government has great difficulty at the time when notices to hear are issued and setting a an appearance date that will be complied with in most cases so suppose they put down appearance dates that are like an interest likely to hold  turns out not to be as they yeah i mean i still think that the i don't think that there isn't there is sort of the non citizen would have an opportunity to sort of you know bring some sort of statistical analysis as to whether it's likely to be the day but i think that there are still a real important purpose served on having a day put on the notice to appear as the answer to that was the answer to that yes or no if it's ninety five percent likely to be changed is that sufficient or ten mapi challenge no i don't think it can be towns i think that's sufficient technically could could could take place the non citizens required to appear that day and by definition that is at that point in time the date and time of the hearing but there's a real it can take you just facts of the chief justices question so fine just on your an if the document that's labeled notice to appear and a other document that sets the appearance they arrive at the same time and to support the los that's not sufficient but if they're in the same on the left that's ok know i mean yes i think of the information provided together in one place then that the not accomplishing exactly what congress is trying to accomplish by moving the time and place information from an optional part of the order to show cause to a required part of the notice to appear i think that's exactly what congress is trying to do and to avoid these types of disputes about whether the hearing notice was properly served and you know i'll note just to go back to your initial hypothetical that that is really very much a hypothetical in the sense that the government has told this court in its brief that it can comply and that it is largely it is now largely complying with the statutes requirement and it's providing information about the actual hearing date up front and that's not surprising you know this sort of dr if congress was determined pretty elegant to get all of this information in one document why does the statute allow the government to keep changing the actual date of the hearing well i think it would be i mean i think that's sort of just a necessary function of the fact that there are going to be times when the hearing has to change for a whole new host of reasons and i think it would have been unrealistic to say that you know once through the day put down on the initial notice document the government individual the individual information that's required by the statute to be in the notice of appeal why each piece doesn't happen dependent value and by that i mean what is the what is the damage that conduct that you believe congress was trying to avoid injuring piecemeal no this is the fundamental question that i think  colleagues have asked you so far is it each of the pieces of information have independent value why would congress have wanted to specify one document right needs to defend herself against removal charges you know you have things like the the act or conduct alleged to be in violation of law and the charges against the statutory provisions alleged to have been violated you know to start providing the acts or conduct in one document and then a year later to provide the charges and then a year later to provide the hearing obviously makes makes little sense and could be could be incredibly confusing but to be a bit more specific as to the time and place information itself i think there were there were two concerns that were motivating the changes the congress made in iraq the st one was the congress with nd immigration courts having to resolve unnecessary disputes about whether this hearing notice was properly served and you can see that in the house  report which specifically identifies this as a problem congress was trying to solve and you can see if you look at pages eight to eighteen the amicus briefs more submitted by the former immigration judges and b i m members which explains in detail the massive administrat problems that are caused by the two step notice process so i think congress is trying to solve solve those problems and then this court specifically noted in pereira the providing time in place information separately from the rest of the information in the statute can cause confusion and it and it's cleaner and more straightforward noncitizens to receive one document with all of this information that they can take to a lawyer or analyze themselves and not require them to sort of piece together sort of piece of information about the removal pretty proceeding that are started over time well st of all i think it's just necessary to have some ability to change the hearing date but also having some sort of date certain on the initial notice is extremely valuable because it means that you if the if the subsequent hearing notice imagine there's no date on the initial notice that if there is a problem serving the subsequent hearing notice then the person's in limbo and there's no date at which they'll ever show up in immigration court but if there is a date on the initial hearing notice even if it gets changed imagine it gets changed and that subsequent subsequent hearing notice isn't properly served with a non citizen still has to show up on the initially notice date and when that person arrives in immigration court and the confusion can be resolved in the person can but then be given in person notice of the new date and that person already knowledgeable of the rights that the notice to appear given them exactly the person already knows all the other justice kagan admission are if if i could start right there because i'm not quite sure i understand the happen but i would think what's one likely is that a change in date doesn't arrive and that seems more confusing to have a date change and maybe change more than once so who are we helping can't really well so i think the st you know frankly i think the congress was most concerned with helping immigration courts and making sure that and sort of ending with this to stop notice process the was causing significant problems was causing all of these unnecessary fights because non citizens and show up in court and say i never received a hearing notice if there isn't a date on the initial notice you can't say that because at the very least you're required to show up on that date so i think that frankly was what congress has primary goal was in terms of the the but i do think the congress was also intending to help non citizens in the sense that yes the hearing today can change but i don't think there's any reason to think that if the government does its job does what it frankly has told us quote it is already now doing in light of pereira  if the government does its job and in a lot of cases the hearing today won't change and you will have a you will have an a notice document that has all of the information including the date of the hearing and i just think it would've been too much to ask understandably that the government once they put a hearing date on you know that there was nothing they could do to change it so i think that's just sort of bowing to reality that you could have your notices but i certainly think it's still very helpful to have all this information in one place and mister hemmer you seem to be assuming that on the st document you know if you want  know that they will send another document and it will be maybe a document with a date with old document stapled to let or maybe it will just take the old document and stamp the date on it so  don't notice document was required to have a date the government doesn't dispute that and it complied with that requirement so you know and it didn't do this kind of two step put the date on later thing so i think congress yes it would be permissible i don't think it's what congress  of let me just give two responses the st the st is as far as it is that is not ambiguous and i think that the that if you just look at what you want to put that one aside from all the time yes so then i think that the assuming there is some ambiguity i think  my primary argument would be that when you have here is under a new under as you know motor cars the agency can just sort of what fly back and forth between positions without explaining itself and yet claim deference and that's exactly what's going on here if you look at the post  suddenly it reaches the opposite conclusion but doesn't even acknowledge these prior decisions and addresses them in a largely unexplained footnote footnote a which just describes them as flawed and i think this is a classic example where the agency has had made an honest unexplained change  position and and is not entitled to deference just if the latest decision is not entitled to deference i also think that the reasoning in mendoza hernandez is really just based on most entirely it basically ignores the statute sta completely ignores the statutes history it doesn't even acknowledge the changes that iroh made even though those changes were addressed in the agency dissent and that type of reasoning just it's not the type of reasonable approach to statutory interpretation that this that this court  requires and it and should be entitled to deference for those reasons too and then last although you know i don't think the court needs to reach this question given all these other issues but we do think that if necessary as we explained in our body if the court could reconsider and should reconsider place in secret this is an opinion that basically came out of the blue no one other than the parties knew the agency was even considering this question there was no opportunity for public input let alone you know public input as to whether the agency was going to change its longstanding position on that  in context i don't think it that even if you sort of take out everything else i think that if you're talking about a written notice specifying a set of interrelated information about the initiation of a legal proceeding i don't think that that language is entirely clear i think you can read it as required and you can read it either way as requiring a specific notice document or is allowing the government to use multiple documents and that's why it's important to look to these other other interpretive tools like looking to the defined term itself where it talks about a notice to appear and like the history and i know justice kavanagh that this phrase written notice was copied directly from the preorder a statute that was competent directly from the prior definition of an order to show cause and i really don't think there's any way to read that statute and not requiring a specific notice on short interrupt but the you're relying on easily on a notice to appear in the parent had a call which does not is justice thomas and necessarily account for the term written notice in the text i take your point about the context in the history but also the the problem i think the chief justice and justice alito and just the sort of my we're raising our asking about was that how does this make much sense in the real world and let me just follow up on their questions if you gave notice with everything including the time and place and then send a nd document with a new time in place that's ok correct yes that specifically allowed by the statute yeah exactly so but if you send a notice without a time and place and then send the nd document with the new time in place that's not ok in your view absolutely and i know that but but that makes perfect sense given what congress you know what kind of a change is the congress made in iraq because the whole problem that was being addressed here was that there were all these unnecessary disputes that congress was sick of these disputes about whether that  absentia proceedings exactly yeah that's exactly right but that's the whole point here because what would happen is there would be no time in place in the initial notice document and then the government would try to sort of a separate hearing notice and then there'd be a fight about whether that hearing notice was properly you know basically the person would claim they didn't get the hearing notice and that kind of jointed trying cars or trying to cut off avenues for immigrants to argue against removal in that sense you have well i think it was trying to avoid those fights and i think i think it was i don't i'm not sure that's exactly right your honor i think it was finally my lawyer on last question i just want to get it in which is you feel i have a lot on the history the legislative and statutory history but the conference report says that the section is designed to quote restate the provisions and code of current right i mean it largely does but i don't think there's any way you can read i mean there are clearly as pereira makes clear i mean pereira explicitly address this  there are some changes that were made and you can just read those changes out of the statute so in general i think in almost all respects it does restate the provisions of the prior law but the one significant change it made is moving to removing this language authorizing the two stop notice process i think of congress wanted to allow the government to keep doing what it was doing there's no reason it would have cut the language of explicitly authorize that practice from the console just to spare the counsel i take it but under the government's approach there's no  you agree that those that time will would run one notice was complete even if the government used a dummy date or day that was ninety nine percent certain to be changed in the end michelle noticed that contain everything force them to put that date out let me let me go back to justice kagan's question so she pointed out that another way to satisfy this will would be to send a centrally what would be a draft notice containing all information except time and place the st time around and then later once the time and place was set on the notice that would actually trigger the stop time will that contain all the information and you conceded that would be sufficient but you resisted it and i'm wondering why you are was this thing is because w better under justice kagan hypothetical for the it might have more information and to know in the beginning all this is what's coming we're going to be an issue a thing you know when the proceedings based on this information and you can expect to hear the later and that even if that time will will happen why do you resist this case and scenario when it would result in a non citizen getting more information so i mean i don't i don't resist that in the sense that i think that it's clear the congress preferred that to what the government is doing now i think that i resist that only in the sense that i don't think that there's any reason to think that the government can't just provide accurate information in the st place which is you know exactly what this court sa just i don't think it's even necessary for the government to do that in the sense that it's told the court it can provide accurate information that it already is in light of pereira is already largely providing accurate information in the initial notice thank you  chief justice in conclusion congress could not have been clearer in iraq the statute used to authorize a two step notice process an order to show cause followed by hearing information in the order to show cause or otherwise and in iraq congress cut the language authorizing the separate hearing notice and require the time in place information to be included in the notice to appear itself that change only makes sense if both the order the show cause and the notice to appear are specific notice documents accepting  interpretation of the statute simply requires that the government do what iraq clearly commands and as i have been describing the government plainly can do this indeed as i was just mentioning justice barrett told the court in its brief at pages forty one dollars to forty two it has already largely done it accepting the government's position by contrast would allow the government to reverse the progress that has made since pereira and continue indefinitely with the very most i stop notice process that are explicitly come from the statute a process that leads to specifies both the content and the form of the required notice the content is listed in the sub paragraph of paragraph one and with respect to form the statute specifies that it must be in writing and must be sir personally or by mail notice provisions the purpose of which is simply to provide adequate notice titian or by contrast would treat differently to areas who receive notice of all the required categories differ from agent at the same time based now all on whether its on holding instead that the proper focus is on the substance of the information required by statute the court should do the same here by holding that the statutory test shows the substance of the notice not its form as one or two documents control mr yang you can fix this whole problem or least move the dispute simply by sending a copy of a notice to appear when you send a notice of when the new hearing date is or when a hearing date is petitioners conception that would satisfy his test although there are some practical difficulties and if i can explain to your issues sharing notices as the adjudicator of the charges and serving an alien combine the n p a form with that noted and research both on the alien and i will try with that i'm sure you understand the intricacies more than i do but whoever is sending out updated notice to appear or the original notice to appear just you know just has to attach what they what someone has already sent which is the original notice notice to appear now if it's the fact that the immigration office has to take the prosecutorial information and staple it together or the other way around it it doesn't seem we think that should be terribly administratively burdensome well on the the record setter so it's not uncommon that this is not local when the noticed is that you know we're not going to scan be done but it would be burdensome now i have to thank you thank you for that information do you argue that the error is harmless here or at least will be harmless in many cases we're not arguing harmless error here because the question is when the talk time rule when it when the time to stop not whether there was an error or there  multiple notices well i think i don't have a specific instance in the u s code but oftentimes there are noted and supplemental notice when there's new information that wasn't originally available and i think that the kind of situation that we have here in many contexts although in thirteen non routine cases we can issue and you issue a notice to appear with hearing date that's not me and it's not timing and the steering and the location of the immigration court those things can depend on two things whether the alien is on the detain docket or the not detain docket the detain docket have to move much more quickly because they're detained and where the alien will be instance on page forty two dollars or three we explain the d h s s by regulation normally have to decide whether to issue the n p a within forty eight hours and it will serve it on the only and shortly thereafter it's important to let an alien a individual who you have detained in the united why they are being detained but when the border patrol arrests the alien it's the one that has the n c a a because it's the investigating agency and it has knowledge of the charges the government detention decision is normally been made by ice because there's nothing to textually limits us but there are practical considerations as we explain remember we're talking about a volume here of like five hundred thousand dollars n c s per year that's about one thousand dollars a week or two thousand a day on average there is no interest in the government balkanize in the notice the written notice it have to provide because it multiplies our effort and introduces all kinds of the control for only and there's never been any indication that the government ever does th which means a notice to appear as a notice to appear shall be sent to the alien in painting a number of things and one of them is the time in the place of hearing things for me to read it says send a note a notice not for notices a notice to appear which contains the following all right and if you look at it practically you say well if you if you have more than one document with some of this information people are going to get mixed up in the aliens might get mixed up on the other hand is more burdensome to the government so i see things on both sides of the practicalities of it so why don't we just go with the language well i guess there's a few things that you have there one is talks about requiring a written notice now if that's true congress is omission of being the operative text and one certainly must have import under petitioner's theory but clearly it does not not only one if you look to just the way the collective thing jailor terms are used when we're talking about collections of information it's quite typical for congress to have used a notice to appear because that c that this is a typical way to to refer to informational singular terms and it would be pretty backwards for congress to say written notice is required in this section to have a notice to that the government furious enough by providing notice with the charges and the schedule hearing that function isn't served by saying whether it's in one document or two all it requires like any notice requirement is that you give notice to the alien a some time asked about what is the importance of question for cases going forward mister zimmer says the government is now providing time and place and the notice to appear so what is the that time whether the alien is going to be detained on whether where the alien will be and what and as a result would you put them on the detained or the on detained docket now the non detained docket move much more slowly to detain docket for good reason have to move quickly if we had to put everybody in our temporarily in our custody on the detain docket that would risk clogging the detaining docket with all of these cases with alien potentially are no longer detained and it would slow the whole process down for a to actually are detained and when this is again it page forty two or three your attempt to deprive the automated scheduling system operates detain docket as we've explained in our brief operational logistics were impossible to overcome because of the fluctuation and the time and place and put that on the notice to appear and that would invoke the stop time rule to turns out to be inaccurate even ninety nine percent of the time that doesn't bother him no i the he still have to get a notice of the sort of hearing notice and that should solve the problem if he seems to the legislative history which he does not support the proposition he said things the congress was concerned about  about the hearing noted but the legislative history doesn't resolve that congress specifically addressed everything that you know he thought was important without changing without providing any kind of clear one document rule if provide a remedy for the that the other side is asking us to implement stopped the aliens from being detained or it changes the course of his or her hearing everything goes on the only issue is whether the government gets the benefit of the stock at room and there the other side says there is an inherent value in having all of the information snus that is specified under the under the statute explicitly it says a notice of appeal i notice a notice to appear must include these six or seven or eight items and that's what in titles you to the benefit the statute confers against the alien and on the government and you haven't really answered for me why that makes no sense and why your argument that you would be entitled to send out seven or eight pieces of paper each one containing the individual items required under the statute and then when you got to the end of all of the stop gap rule comes into effect but the alien can't really know because it can't control you from sending those notices out a month two months three months apart six months apart eight months apart at some point the alien trying to know what you're talking about when you send the piece of paper think one of the premises is quite wrong which is that congress was intending to just to apply to the question of the stop time rule the notice requirements apply much more broadly and stop time re but if you give them that information all at once they no longer have a defense if they fail to show up at the specified hearing date that's what your adversaries saying congress hope for tending to kind that argument off there were ten hearing notices in this case that's not terribly on exceptional right things get rescheduled it could be inclined to going to change in almost every immigration hearing there's usually a master calendar hearing that starts off and they schedule different hearings later the idea that you would have to have it all in one document particularly when congress until twenty nine to provide for separate hearing notice later is an odd argument particularly when the requirement is separate out a notice and to set a different document if it wanted to you know the nature of the proceedings would be in one document and charges would be in another document and so forth and so on i mean that just seems wrong to me and and so that makes me look harder a a statutory language and indeed a statutory language seems to cut very much against you know that there is a definition here of the phrase notice to appear and the statutory definition says that that phrase means written notice pacify the following things and if we do what we usually do with the statutory definition we just sort of plug in the definition in place of the defined term we get a pretty clear answer on th the specifying the following for you know i understand but if you look obviously a with the quotes notice to appear congress concluded the article there and the idea of the congress when it would put the article  st piece of paper i'm going to give you my man and the nd piece of paper i'm going to give you the judgment that i'm appealing from how would that work out well actually i think that's a fairly healthy what's a hypothetical for us because this court has already addressed notices but we we don't think it does and we think the text supports our position best and in addition although we can provide a hearing date on certain onto canaille lance burton and taylor who's not going to be detained because they've already been in the country and they applied exercise it the way it has let me ask you this what if what if i had a lot of work i said in my man and my law clerk manual i want to bench memorandum analyzing the facts the law in your proposed disposition and instead of providing that my law card provided three separate memos  each detailing various views of the facts for more on the law and then i don't know a couple on proposed dispositions would that be a bench memorandum you know it might be but i think in the context that would be not ordinary the government is actually mustered the courage to make a chevron step to argument here which is interesting to me why should the government get if there's ambiguity here at the end of the day after we exhaust everything why should the government concluded that the presumption against retroactivity eliminated all the ambiguity and that you know and in addition you know as it is there was a very one sentence that mentioned some immigration what's the government's view on when chevron step two is triggered while chevron step to the court has repeatedly said that it just requires ambiguity on the question and then that goes to did agency the question then is whether the agency reasonably the immigration judge could still reject the cancellation of removal and remove a non citizen it would just be discretionary rather than mandatory is that correct that  is that is true but i would hesitate to know that one of the ponderous to the purposes in imposing these limitations on eligibility is to remove the ability for ex the executive discretion to score previously a direct suspension of exercise discretion in the same light had that choice in ninety seven chose not to go that route to follow on on something justice thomas raised and then justice kagan followed up on and just to make sure i understand your answer on the six or seven notices point i understood you to say but correct me if i'm wrong that the actual operation of a system in the structure of the overall statute operates as  a deterrent on the government doing any such thing to that just makes no sense for the government to do that i think that right understood you to say you know when they make sure i understand that i think that's exactly right remember now we're talking about a system that has to process about five hundred thousand dollars notices to appear per year that's about two thousand per day and the idea that we would you know he is a priest it form with everything except the hearing today which because we can always provide a hearing aid effectively practically when we're doing that in an early stage and all of a sudden break it into you know eight or ten different documents each of which remember we have a document we serve the alien so we have to keep evidence of i see the point that he made but i don't think that the the congress by providing a notice to appear it's simply a reference and so whether they included  immediately or within forty eight hours but you don't necessarily know at that point where the detention facility will be so here's my question i mean presumably now you're handling that by within forty eight hours issuing a notice to appear that has all information except the time in the place of the hearing why can't you then once the alien is put in a detention facility at that point it's human n t a that has all the information because now they're in a detention facility and you know where they are  so we would then be issuing two notices to appear one with a hearing day later the reason we are marking that's not possible but the reason it's difficult is because the marrying of written notices with the physical a file the n t a form and doing that on the volume that we're talking about plus within the timeline remember if you want to delete hearings all please you can do it within ten in theory you could you have the additional problem that the only ones will bond out and you will have holes in the docket the nd problem is just logistical he or the immigration court could try to put the detained docket on a automated system and they just found the obstacles to break because of the fluctuations in the population the tell me that the real issue is efficiently scheduling these hearings close together if you have all these gaps you end up having inefficient allocation that result in people waiting longer for hearings so your would have to change a system to automated back to the system that they already determine this is on page forty two of our brief was not practicable with respect to the detaining docket now once there are non detained i guess you could do it again but you've got the same problem because of how you could put a time expired let me ask you one other question you said that part of the problem and having the immigration court issued a complete immigration court could name a gratian quite simply include a copy of what you've already sent to then announce that it then and then on a separate document notify the time and place of the hearing and put them in the same  certainly if we were to lose their case would have to be considered but i can say i mean we've gone through this very clearly with the e u or on this and there is a strong view as a neutral adjudicator they should not be specified both the form and the substance of the notice form is that it has to be in writing and has to be served either personally or by mail there is no dispute the petition received written notice of all of the information required i and twenty nine a that should be the end of the admits that its position would allow it to chop this all of this information up however it wants i mean it could provide as we explained in our brief of the government's right that all has to do is provide a written notice in some form it could provide all of the non case specific information to every single non citizen who enters the country and leave that out when it provides the the specific charging information and ultimately all the government can say is will trust us not to do that and that's generally not the way that this court you know would interpret statutes to sort of absurd results just because you trust to trust the government not to sort of carry out those results and then ultimately much of mister young's argument is just because just focus on the fact that this is hard to do but ultimate maybe this is hard to do i mean i can't dispute much of what he said but the government doesn't get to avoid doing things just because they're hard to do and if if prior to iraq the government the statute specifically authorized the government to use the system it's defending here it specifically told the government it could provide this time and place information in a separate hearing document and in iraq for whatever reason congress changed its mind and it moved that time and place information from an optional part of the order to show cause to require part of a notice to appear and again as i emphasized before the government has known this from day one on in as post i rule making and this is a page fifty three of our statutory appendix in interpreting our ira the government itself stated and this is a direct quote recognize quote the language of the amended act indicating that the time and place of the hearing must be on the notice to appear so maybe this was a hard problem but it was a hard problem that the government knew from day one it was required by the statute to solve and and ultimately decided that it couldn't solve the problem its response was not to make the unilateral decision to ignore what it conceded to be congress's clear instructions it solution was to go back to congress and ask it to change the snatch you back to what it said before the government should not be able to athens now ask this court to effectively bail it out from its failure to do what it knew it required by asking this court to adopt exactly the opposite interpretation of the statute that the government itself gave it right after it was enacted thank you very much