good morning and may it please the court amanda canada from the federal defender program on behalf of me is my own rango rodriguez now the legal question presented in this case is the same as the one articulated by my colleague or earlier this morning in her now there are factual distinctions between the cases but the legal analysis is the same in both cases there is a defective notice to appear in absentia removal hearing that was done through no like the mendoza lopez decision that a codified is concerned with failures of due process in immigration proceedings in him and ministry to proceedings that would make it fundamentally unfair to rely on that removal order in a subsequent criminal proceeding there must be some judicial checked and so the question is whether there was perceived will defect that insulated that removal order from judicial review and if that is the case then due process of judicial review and administrative exhaustion are intertwined because the failure came at that very st step where there was no notice to mr rangel that he had the opportunity to appeal to the adverse decision in the removal order to the board of immigration appeals and in mendon lopez the court held that immigration judges failure to adequately inform an individual of their right to to be a little rose and in mr wrangles case again there was an in absentia removal so mr ringold was not present at the hearing there was not that recitation that we've seen in a lot of the case law by the immigration judge misleading and the trial decision as my colleague said can find couldn't find both a mission of one's rights with a misleading statement he's correct that there was nothing technically wrong with the statements in the notice two of intent in charles well but that a reading of it misled an individual it's not about the government's arguments that you and i assume they'll make the same one with respect to your client the we just heard that there hasn't been anything submitted in the record that this was actually misleading tear and nor was there anything in the charles will decision that there was a big actively misleading the question is on the face of the document  actively missed so it doesn't matter whether it actually misled your client it's just look at the face and that's there that's what the charles mccord did and i think is appropriate here as well your honor so there's the omission in the section that deals present through no fault of your own there are remedies now for unknown reasons the n t a leaves out that affirmative statement of rights and that omission combined with the language included in the content of the hearing talks about what is permissible at the hearing what you may produce at the hearing and so for an individual who was not present at it without knowing that they have the opportunity to reopen because the n t doesn't say that when they read that paragraph talking about the conduct admission of no and i point out the government relies in the alternative on this idea that you're not required to inform an individual of their rights and i think that that's an overly broad reading of the case law so when i read a compass the individual did have notice that there was a remedy available so the individual was served with an order to show cause it speaks based in florida recitation you have the right to reopen and so this court has never held that when it there is absolutely no notice as to right that somebody is responsible for knowing their procedure rates and in fact the know your audience and it's certainly true that ignorance of the law is not a defense to a charge but in the criminal context we don't presume that you know of your right to appeal this federal rule of criminal procedure thirty two dollars which says a inviting language we don't hold you responsible for knowing your appellate rights in the criminal context nor should we in the immigration nor has the court ever done so in each of those cases where there was a failure to file and it was very open there was always either counsel or not if the government also stated i'll agree it's all diana and in that case the individual was represented at their board at their immigration proceeding and they had counsel there and they were informed of their though i think what the distinction is essentially is that you are once you have notice if you don't know how to affectionally your european rights that's on you but the court has never said we never tell you or if we mis what happened in this case is that the defendant after being after obtaining he was taken into immigration custody after reentering the country and he appeared at i think three different immigration proceedings via video conference ultimately he obtained bond he secured a cosigner for that bond and was really after he was released he was arrested for driving under the influence and he was unable to attend the removal proceedings because he was in custody at the time and so no one disagrees here that he did not receive notice and no one disagrees that the reason that that was because he was in i think the point of disagreement about the right to receive notice of this remedy one of the problems there is that it's very difficult to give notice to someone who has not appeared at their an abstention removal proceeding that they have any further rights because they were not there what is happened instead is that congress has created a very practical remedy for that which is the right to move to reopen your removal proceedings at any time this in fact solves that problem that necessary flows from the persons lack of appearance in the movie d removal proceedings over it's a chance to go back and say i was in custody on the date of my removal proceedings i would like to reopen this and do it all again at which point all of the rights and remedies that are detailed in the original notice to appear and i would direct the court attention to the nd page of this which really is replete with a very lengthy recitation of the defendant's rights that kick in in that situation it contains the details that the person has a right to retain a examine evidence provided by the government and objective evidence can cross examine witnesses it's affectively a lengthy list of what you can do during your immigration hearing it also does state in the f d a that in of censure removal proceedings may take from status so it's really quite a full some recitation of a person's rights and so it would be very difficult to imagine a situation there where that kind of document could completely and fully list every permutation of any case and every right or remotely that may become available depending on which to a sometimes the case may take and so in this case when someone does not appear fit for their removal hearing it makes sense why something like that might not be contained in the n again the solution is an incredibly broad remedy a chance to do it all over again simply by making making out the argument that i was not informed of my hearing and i could not attend i think it is also worth noting in this case that wrangled did in fact as of his right to reopen there's an agent's note in his a file which states that the defend it was taken into ice custody i believe on september th after his release from that drunk driving conviction that prevented him from attending the removal hearing  and it states that the subject was removed and said quote subject does not wish to reopen his case subject has accepted the i j a order for removal and then again it also adds that he was served with that list of free legal aid wh disputed in the district court i think the fact of it was not disputed the argument was that it was inconclusive or insufficient but it is the only piece of evidence in the record as to this and there is nothing to the contrary that has been offered campus case there was some notice about this right i would add though that in that case there were a campus court pointed out that the defendant was fourteen years old when the initial removal proceedings began and at that point as a young teenager he was given some notice of the right to reopen the court effectively discounted that acknowledging that no one's paying much attention to anything if you're fourteen and instead what the court focused on the passage of time the ten plus years that had happened since then and saying it was within that window of time that he could have learned about his rights and become and taken advantage of the rights arena that applied there and that a family life here and then i'd also like to turn back to the charles well case which again i think  taken us down a road that's somewhat far afield from where we began in this litigation again the charles whole case does not deal with a defendant who was removed in absentia and in fact i don't believe any of the cases the defen in this case it's not disputed that that notice was given it is in the n c a a for all the reasons that i've already stated the government's view is that language is neither misleading nor ambiguous i'd also add that here the defendant in this case has not argued that he was misled and secure bail however he was asked if by the immigration officer if you want it it appears he was asked or at least it was discussed with him the rights reopen and the record reflects that he declined to do so would it be a subjective  clearly as to whether or not he was misled as opposed to an object upon just looking at the face of the document and what your business and i would have to be a factual issue right now this was again not presented to the district court and there's no evidence  that the defendant apparently declined to move to reopen his case after being presented with that information and then separately when he was later found in the country again and there was a motion to reinstate his removal proceedings the options there are you may make a statement contesting this decision to an immigration officer and then the same document contains an acknowledgement section for the defendant where he or she can select i do want to make such a statement or i do not want to make that clear rangel selected the do not box and sign that and moved along with the process so when opportunities were afforded to him he declined those and so there and separately there was no indication or that he was actually confused misled or deprive them of any opportunity particularly for somebody who did not have noticed this remedy where it was omitted from the n c a a the government's stated to the agents notes and we did contest that in the district court as an interest to determine that there was any accurate adequate notice st of all the note simply says mr rangle declined has no information about what sort of advice of rights the agent may or may not have given and there wasn't any affirmative evidence put in on the other side by the defendant saying no disputing it there was no as a factual matter yes there are i believe that we did indicate that the agent's notice was was should not be relied on consistently argued that the notice was in adequate follow record eight at four through five and our reply at eleven and nine in our opening brief we made that argument at twenty five to to to two responses st this is the same exact language that was in dispute in the charles will case where the charles what court found that the affirmative omission plus the misleading language resulted in a misleading noticed in the individual because it's leading i don't think that it should be done and nd the question at the time of a reinstatement order is limited it is is there ever order not a valid removal order there's no inquiry into the underlying proceedings simply is there removal order is the individual the same as the individual identified in removal order and has there been another so there's not the opportunity there to collaterally attack an underlying remove if mr bangle rodriguez had made a statement at that point he did not have the opportunity to go back to ask the court or  that will complete the hearings for the morning thank you