ride to the united states in early two thousand and four shortly thereafter involved with a man the couple filed aaron in two thousand and four they the couple married in two thousand and eight they had a  nd child sharon in two thousand and they went on to work hard and currently owned and operated a restaurant during that the document that d h when was the argument you are now making st presented  when that argument was st presented to the board in our motion to reopen well isn't that a problem we held in ortiz santiago that the problem without a fight in herrera is not jurisdictional but is a claims processing rule correct and normally the rule is that it claims processing rule has to be raised at the st opportunity or it is forfeited that indeed is a holding of our court  jurisdictional it's a claims processing doctrine and therefore must be raised at the st opportunity it doesn't look like you have made your current argument about  notice to appear at the st opportunity my question is why it can be raised so late in the case we raised it in our motion to reopen because it was pereira basically change opportunity before the immigration  doctrine and it's therefore one that must be raised at the st opportunity that's the holding of ortiz santiago and i'm trying to figure out how therefore you have properly raised this contention that the notice to appear was not proper or that the provision would later date didn't perfected when it wasn't raised at the st opportunity i probably we're obviously getting nowhere let me ask you a different question what is the current status among the courts of appeals on the question whether the immigration in moline again viewed this as so simple it didn't need to be in a presidential order what else is out there is there anything else other well there is the th circuit decision which is currently that's been vacated it's been vacated but so among them you don't know of any other decisions we have the rd circuit coming out one way fifty six and eleven coming out the other way and that appears to be it for the moment correct ok thank you is it your argument that ortiz santiago wouldn't apply because he was a jurisdictional argument addressed there as opposed to the merits correct and  that this was a claims processing rule which could be forfeited unlike a jurisdictional rule which couldn't before so why wouldn't that same claims processing argument and for iture apply in this context think i know you talk about a different argument it's the eligibility for cancellation of removal but it's based on the same underlying statutory requirement timely but that this this is really a non jurisdictional argument are you familiar with the court's opinion and chattery yes i am and is there anything about that that would prevent us from in this case making that determination in the st instance rather than sending it back to the board to decide  no limited amount of time that i have like to discuss the legislative purpose behind the stop time rule i think we need to be talking about the issues that we have already discussed certainly we need to talk about whether there has been were a even though there were other deficiencies in the motion that but the timeliness argument wasn't to the timeliness of raising the issue of the defective notice to appear it was  board did not address that specifically i think that's the issue which is that what the board seemed to premises decision on were was one the jurisdictional argument which they thought was reserve was resolved by bermuda and then secondly the actual perera stop time rule in that context which they felt was resolved by mendoza hernandez and i question there is whether or not the subsequent notice of hearing would cure that defective  petitioner forfeited that argument consistent with what we found in well by not raising it at the st instance before the immigration court i believe that that that that that issue has been waived however the difficulty under generator is that i didn't see that as being a basis for the board argue not so much on what the court can do now for example if the court wants to remain and it back to the board to consider the timeliness of the argument that was raised with respect to the to ask you to pereira and whether or not it actually should be santiago holds that objections to the notice to peter for claims processing rules that must be raised in the administrative process neither side seems to have taken any notice  we always hope when we issue decisions that warriors will actually pay attention to them but that seems sometimes for the lord my apologies your honor the way i was the way i view ortiz santiago is as addressing a jurisdictional question it didn't actually address the pereira stop time rule on the squarely and as a matter of fact the court's decision and in  guadalupe said the same thing which was that our this court's decision in in or to santiago did not directly address the stop time rule in this particular three nd question how many courts of appeals have addressed the question of whether a notice to appear has to be in one document or can be in i know that my colleagues are briefing this case this exact situation and every circuit the th circuit is consistent with the rd circuit correct didn't the th circuit find that a subsequent notice could not cure the original circuit and finally it wasn't until just a few days ago in the end as per penya that they actually came out with a published decision extending its finding in pure paul to this precise stop time context and i think the honor said we're not sure actually we're not so sure that that the two step process is is acceptable post prayer i think that the court completely was getting added itself in a sense because i do believe that or to santiago is entirely consistent with pereira again it was more of a pereira type decision that should not squarely address the stop time rule on all fours now the statute is there anything in the statute that tells us one way or the other how many documents can make up a notice to appear the simple answer that is not however the stop time rule refers statue so you're asking me about other things in the statute referring this is not time rule refers to receiving a notice to appear again under the dictionary act that could refer to one or more documents and then this is the critical one and a two and a three and while a one a three g discuss all of the particulars of items that should be in a notice to appear to subsection to discuss all of the things that can be changed or altered or supplement i think that it's going quickly back to the dictionary at the important thing about this the legislative intent of this is that congress created the stop time rule to prevent aliens from continuing to w california penal colony that that means the linguistic context of the statute it doesn't refer to the contents of anybody i think to to rebut to to emphasize your point your honor the th circuit addressed the issue that we face here directly in garcia romo and said that the stop time rule was not ambiguous and that its ordinary meaning allows for the government to provide non add a minute to your time you had asked my colleague about anything in the statute pointing pointing definitively to whether the singular versus