is the overriding issue that started on the motion to read real thing that was granted by the immigration judge in holland in texas in two thousand and twelve and continues to be an issue  children that are all under the age of seventeen and he owns a roof in business and has some signal to life as a thirty eight year old man still living in the united states the notice of hearing for mr bush out of to appear at the court was purposely withheld by a guardian who had promised to the court to circumstances with him not getting the notice i understood from the record that he had moved and not provided the forwarding address and there was no claim as in our  responsibility for him that he had moved to be with his mother and then there was an affidavit provide in support of a motion to reopen by this woman that she purposefully and intentionally did not for the hearing notices his his mother moved the location be that's correct and the government makes a lot of the obligation of this sixteen year old boy who maybe within twenty years has to comply with a court order to yes important separate issue but just to clarify it might correct in my understanding the record that the mother and he moved to location b and did not provide a forwarding address to the government that is correct your honor so it so under normal under our normal procedures the statutes very clear he cannot claim failure to have service on him unless we focus in on the fact that he is sixteen years old for the fact that he's sixteen and then but for the fact that he wanted one get to the notice to appear issue well i think he decided to spend time living with his mother but certainly the guardian who was still receiving all of the notices was still in reopened because he did not have notice of the hearing now the motion to open itself only cited to lack of notice did not cite at all to see his want a authority which is where the government tries to turn the notice and it was luck of notice and that the notices were purposely withheld from him by an adult guardian who could have easily provided that hearing notice to him so although he was spending time away from the home it wasn't until the government couldn't reach him the government but i do want to point out your arse that the original motion to reopen that was filed only argued lack of notice it it argued lack of notice because he did not physically receive it but also argued that the lack of notice remained and the issue of whether this is are reopening or it recision and i understand that the immigration judges wording may may have not been the most clear or may have been a little awkward but the reality is brief and casual and innocent departure where here the fact that there was a removal order rescinded and voided in that new c e o would excuse that time that was outside the united states as a matter of fact it was the immigration judge and home a security at the initial hearing before the immigration court where that was the only issue was that removal water and on appeal the boy said yes there's no real legal at the beginning of the case it was reminded and late of the rescission of the underlying removal order the government uses that language in light of the recession and now the board takes a turn based on new memorandum at least she'll this is the rationale applied by the bills in the last go matter that the board says themselves that when there is a motion to reopen or rescind based upon a lack of notice that is that it's a legal nobody from the beginning of the case that the applicant the person restores his legal status the country should not be held against him in the context of his application or cancellation notice to appear did not contain a date and time and if i just may briefly finish that briefly it was more than ten years also include the burden to disprove any allegations of even eligibility but even if it didn't i mean on our part motion said that the boy was free to address any additional issue the best fish i have a she was supposed to be in texas immigration court so they provided mailed a notice to the address he provided and that those apparently wasn't back mails now the fact that some of the household didn't physically say hey i got some mail that's not some years earlier was living with the landlady and the landlady either told me the immigration authorities or or the petitioner come up to boston and up to you to petition or the landlady to get good idea of the address and chelsea self i mean i  before but was also read to him in spanish so that's on the page nine hundred and sixty two dollars of the administrative records so i mean he made out of understand it but instead of legal terms but he at least understood the op what was being said before this court whether the motion to reopen was properly granted or not again this was it was not opposed with appeals and the only argument made in that motion to open originally was lack of notice extenuating circumstance is a separate grounds time on the original rose to appear and also i would ask the court to disregard the ninety day break in the continued physical presence as it was beyond his control to be outside the country for this