and that is correct because the supreme court had decided to scan and then that i circuit had decided brendan whatever the issue in law know was that they waited until the companion case decision and lopez valencia before seeking reconsideration that's distinguishable from the case at hand here because mr goulart was deported before there was any fundamental change in the law and unlike law and i he wouldn't have been put on notice of these changes until he learned of it through some other avenue which plenty of verses when should indicate it would look to actors such as continuing a relationships with attorneys as well as access to information mr gewirtz in a foreign country in brazil and would not have access to the u s courts to learn whether or not these fundamental changes would have allowed him to renew his petition to stay in the united states and for mr what you mean by would have access to courts i mean i assume that  are your honor but they wouldn't have the same import so they wouldn't be reported in brazil as they would in the united states and so he wouldn't have that same access to learn of this information is he would if you were in the united states  you mean like in the grass when that is correct or are so in the press he wouldn't have learned of it in fact that's how he learned of it here is his criminal court counsel had learned about the supreme court case and then reached out to let them know issue a stay and they concluded in that note that it would be quite possible that the appeal in that case would not have been resolved until long after there was a decision in the instant case and in that same sense it would have been difficult his counsel never indicated that they learned about the th circuit only of the supreme court case however even if they did there would have been it would have been reasonable for them not to pursue the case until there was more finality with the supreme court because there could have been a stay at any moment issued from any single justice while the case is being decided and unlike one a while the application may be straightforward wan that's when there is sufficient notice you know our argument here is that there is not sufficient notice there was no notice for mr grew our until he received in june of two thousand is that because i was following you guess i'm having trouble following that part of yours and i would argue that it is a fundamental change in the law but that it would have been reasonable to wait until finality from the supreme court considering the risk of a potential state being issued and unlike long us the ignorance of the law was not an excuse there only because there was not sufficient and sufficient notice there was that law and it was in the united states when the scamps and randon were decided states it seems like like they didn't really how could they have relied on ignorance the law is no excuse and also relied on the fact that while you're here in the united states else it would have to be like ignorance a lot no excuse when you're a united states but ignorance is an excuse when you're somewhere else and that's the question your honor is whether or not that was noticed because the distinction would be if you're in the united states and in proceedings you would be under you would under much alone and would only imply if you're in the united states and i say so you don't have i wouldn't make a fine line distinction is that nature your honor it would be whether or not there's sufficient notice and here being out of the i would argue it is your honor in the sense that she was here in proceedings and would have known of those changes and that's very different than being out of the country because the notice would have been much more readily available as a constructive notice that is correct your honor we weren't able to get a statement from mr goulart and timing was becoming an issue and it wasn't too stable in brazil and so communication was a problem as he was transitioning through various places correct i'm looking at looking at they are really yes your honor but our argument would be that they didn't fully evaluate all the factors because they didn't consider whether or not that notice would have been sufficient have expected someone like that to follow daily the th circuit law to see whether there was a change in his favor i mean it's one thing when you know when and they don't you know sometimes i scratch my head and say why did the supreme court even bother with this case but it's different in this case the supreme court as soon as the supreme court decided it this criminal who knows you know well you know we have exactly who knows they don't know but we have any number of in fact it's disturbing him and my work works where we are there are oh he was criminal attorney and then the supreme court decides which gets garnished almost always and variably a considerable degree of coverage even if even if it's not on a major issue to read minds circuit opinions whether in physically or on the internet every day so to find out whether or not the th circuit the side of the case that might be helpful to him is that your position yes or no brazil when you know that far the border but he had been deported so let's assume he was anywhere else because i'm giving you the best case scenario a block away from the courthouse in pasadena should he ha thirteen so the supreme court had already initiated its undertaking prior to departure unlike mr large and we would argue that he did not have that notice and that this fundamental change in the law should be sufficient  inquiry and here the fact that he didn't know until june and that we can't expect someone to follow all of the opinions from the appellate circuits unless they have an attorney or someone who can do that for that and mr g