honorable justices of the rd circuit wilson want to loop it was placed into removal proceedings like thousands of non citizens by a document that was required by statute to be a notice to appear except it wasn't my document it was a piece of paper that failed to inform him about the date in time to appear in front of the immigration judge a later piece of paper new ira ira was formed and specifically it was formed by statute by congressional intent to make sure that things were done in a way that gave people the correct notice of time and place because it was the history at that time that what happened was a document entitled the notice to in order to show cause  we needed overhaul there were terrible problems that needed to be fixed there was an order to show cause one would buy another document that was to give the notice of hearing time and place but in fact it a report of the judiciary committee of the house of representatives and noted that this legislation was designed under the new or that there will be a single form of notice and what we're talking about here your honour's is not a situation where you can fix something by a subsequent piece of paper the notice to appear is specific it's a clinton sensual definition   the notice to appear did not cut off his time he came here when he was twenty eight he's forty eight now he has more than thirteen excuse me as almost fifteen years of presence that followed the day of the original defective notice to appear it's not a question of completing your honor but what about the performance in ecuador the four months in ecuador do not cut off his time if he resumes a new period of ten years which in this fact he has done so with was the four months prior to the ten years yes you are in other words in other words the notice to appear i believe was two thousand and seven and  and what happened is if that doesn't cut off the time the time continues to run and therefore he is entitled to have a new period of time and at this point that new period of time two dozen four yes i believe in the notices we're talking about were in in may two thousand and seven yes wrong so since two thousand and seven he's been in the united states yes your honor it was only out of the country for an illness in a family his mother was very very seriously ill and he returned within several months i'm i'm not prior counsel i'm not one hundred percent certain are of the dates but i can tell you your honor that he has been here for almost fifteen years italy is mother that was less than three months no your honor it was it was almost four months i believe but that was back in two thousand that was way back in two thousand and four and at this time he's been here almost are going going on it's important that the night circuit summarized where as we well know and said that a notice to appear within the meaning of the statute does not does not terminate an alien's residence however what we're talking about here and the concern about court is about a subsequent no disappearance and it is specific in the war that the notice to appear is stylized in a certain way it is a vehicle that was created by congress where is a notice of hearing is something that is created as and administrat document to change normally a date would give a future date of the hearing and the notice of the pier is nothing like the notice to appear and it's not a question your manners of does  it say date in time yes your honour's it says date in time but specifically it was congregational intent and congress has spoken and the supreme court later spoke in prayer and told us specifically intentional definition this is what a notice to appear must be because we're dealing about substantial rights lights that affects a person to stay in this country after a lifetime or not  that affect him in such a monumental way that we have to be careful and it's not the ability neither of the of the be of the board of immigration appeals or any give the b i a any chevron deference because the st step is is it is is it is it something that we can't understand is it something that is ambiguous or is it clear and if it's clear we know that chevron deference stops there besides that the board of immigration appeals is not your court justices of the rd circuit the court is in the best position to circuit lights and it says in footnote thirty four dollars to a rascal that this notice to appear which was the nd notice of appear and to appear in a roster which was to correct the place of the court that this notice to appear was not a completion and not a supplement it was the st notice to appear because it was the st right one the notice to appear that does not state what the statute says it must state and pereira made it simpler it only spoke to time and place and a notice that doesn't appear to do that the notice to appear that fails to do that is defective and counts for noise it  nothing it's not something that we can use and go forward with what are you with and what do we do what happens next what happens next is what has happened already what has happened already is since the immigration courts were flooded with lotions to terminate after pereira what happened was from several days there after notices to appear contained the time and date they were corrected so if there is a mistake and there is no time and date well there is a solution sand a notice to appear and correct it it's not something that the department of homeland security would you ask us to do in this case on i'm asking you your honest to give it to to deny the appeal of the government and to up hold wilson waterloo bay's right to have a trial as to cancellation of removal your honor i'm asking you to fall into the plain meaning of the statute i'm asking us to look at the statute and to say that when i see a word it says on notice it refers to any single notice when we see exactly what i what i wish the question is whether you can make words mean different things that's all that's what alice said and i'm asking you not to i'm asking you to look at the claim statute as did the th circuit the th circuit the six circuit didn't tie it to any statute didn't tie it to any regulations it's kind what it wished to feel and i think that our circuit acts differently i think we need to respect the pla meaning of the statute and begin tent of congress they went from two notices to one per reason it was because they wished it to be right they wanted to get it right and the government can't do it please specific styled document it is not a notice of hearing which is an administrative document it is specific it is a quintessential definitional situation where the statute is plain and clear you can't cobble a notice to appear which is required by statute and just because you feel that it's easier stick on a notice of hearing and then expect our court to uphold that that's just and right because we can't just do anything we please we are banned by the law and we are bound to look at the clear meaning of the statute so we cannot ignore people's substantive rights as if it's a minister a deal or a ministerial matter this is substantive law this effects the war of people to the extreme and this gentleman will have to prove extreme suffering to a u s citizen child parent or spouse if he is to be successful but in the meanwhile it is essential that we not give in to this talk about doing whatever we please this is not zen this is a court of law we are our balance to walk and uphold and examined the clear meaning of the statute and go by it and that is why your honor we must do this not out of convenience and if the court or if congress had wished to be flexible they would have so for example your honor for example the n t a says that you can serve somebody by mail if impractical to ship to do it otherwise but this is not a question of impracticability your honor the court cannot allow flexibility when congress has stated that it must contain the time and place i can't your honor do whatever i want when i'm filing a brief i must follow statute if it's statutory if it's ministerial or something that can be remedied then not but in this case your honor we're talking about stuff substantive rights and they must be looked to by looking at the clear meaning of the statute which is that the supreme court wasn't didn't necessarily need to address that that if she didn't come up it's not stated at any point in the session and both the th circuit and the six or six circuit have specifically stated see roma that the supreme court didn't address this particular issue what the th circuit found was that it does it is satisfied by a combination of notices as long note that what is required is written notice and then in parentheses i'm saying referred to in this section by by the term notice to appear so they're saying that what what was important is that this person received written notice of the of these items and and they also make the analogy to if you send your book chapter by chapter to your editor you still just sent in one park so they are taking it from the  immigration service to make sure when they send out a notice to appear that they put the time and place and and in a rosko what was it two years between the time of the original notice and the nation of the of the time and place and you know i wrote that i thought it was right at the time but if the supreme court kills me to do differently i have very happy to do what they want done when you have a situation where certainty is easily accomplished and makes a rule that's a lot easier to to conform to the supreme court does say that they believe there is such a system could be designed so i'm not going to argue with that with that but the question here is whether or not did the supreme court actually over go ask us such that this court has a blank slate and the super supreme court said about hearing is not sufficient to trigger the start time rule until the combination of the suit to the screw i was quite aware of this and referred to it they abrogated everyone else that agreed that disagreed with with the with the rd circuit but they did not abrogate the rd circuit's opinion on us and certainly this court has even noted in a comma which address perera in the context of the jurisdictional question they noted that  that prior prior is very careful about how narrow its decision is to be read they were and and homo the court actually cautioned against this expanding the that very narrow holding has said in the more restrictive way rather than the less restrictive i think that would be true if there was some implication that was how the supreme court intended to their brother their decision to be read instead they indicated that their decision should be read the other way they didn't abrogate risk of alaska's they resolve the support of the circuit split in favor of the position that this court took rather than than we can extrapolate from the decision that they intended to have a holding that they had an opportunity to make but chose not to and you can see in both the th circuit and the th circuit they both comment on how this is this is not this was multiple of her through more than one document but the written notice of those things needs to be provided in order for it to constitute a new superior and that's why when the th circuit is looking at the th circuit decision part of  judge callahan in her dissent stated that a the dictionary definition of a can also include corals and the th circuit said that is the that's beside the point whether a stands for just a singular one or a concern for multiple persons things or or documents is irrelevant because there's really only one notice to appear it's just that that notice to appear is coming in different pieces suppose you have a situation this case is a three day break between yes the original notice and have time in place to send another notice to appear the time and place and that would cure everything would i don't dispute the point about because see i kind of know the counter arguments i know the reason why the reason is because the immigration courts didn't want d h us to be able to schedule their hearings for them they wanted to be able to put the immigration judges want to be able to control their own dockets and and hold the hold hearings and do their schedule and you know decide to move a case or whatever on their own and not have that scheduling come from v h s but that's really beside the point because i understand your position and supreme court took the position that it would be more  it's at least possible to provide that information but but the question then is is it required by statute or for that the agency to do so and at least the th and and the th circuit have and also certainly was aware of this of this conversation and chose not to weigh in and said chose to state that that their decision should be read very narrowly i don't think that there's any reason for this court to  settled at this point there's an petition that is pending the court order supplemental prefixing on the issue of harmless error which if this court is interested in harmless error i'm happy to discuss it so the th circuit may be looking at this case again it was a twenty one decision before them and judge callahan's dissent was quoted in the it's relied upon heavily by the th circuit and here paul so at the decisions no difference for interpret ing supreme court decisions and deference for interpreting the ionizing so it is our position that correct does not address this particular situation and in fact couldn't address it because because because it wasn't raised there and in fact the opposite was raised there by both sides so what if i'm looking at this and knew the agency is zero deference statute says we're supposed to do it and so they do have expertise in that area and and they rely on several things that bolster the reliability of that analysis they're looking at the long history of interpretation the fact that prior to matter come rio which was which was overturned by the supreme court that seven different courts have found that the combination of notice is satisfied as the the nose to appear requirement in order to stop time so they're looking at history they're looking at the text and they are and they're also they're also considering what the supreme court said and i see that my time's   and then the supreme court ultimately overturned everyone that disagreed with the rd circuit but left the rd circuit secession intact up at his hearing he does have an opportunity he can always file a motion to reopen in recent is his in and censure order saying that he didn't get adequate notice and that is a case that comes up sometimes and it is a remedy that's available he received notice of both items but his his period of continuous residence was allowed to run just a little bit longer so in that case in his case there even if there is an error in not having that information on the s the government and the other is sent by the court they don't look anything alike and the notice of hearing is sent by ordinary mail so your opportunity to give notice a non citizen needing this notice of the hearing happens at the st instance not at later instances the notice of hearing is subject to ordinary mail when there is household failure how do i know that i've been practicing immigration law for twenty two years and it happens more often than i'd care to tell you also i recently read in  where you have more than one notice you have double your chance for situations where no it's never reaches the person and in this case we hope that the person receives it but they don't even know about bringing the vehicle of a motion to reopen unless they actually receive notice that they missed it so the law is there the notice to appear was designed by congress on that april  and ninety seven date to make changes and among them is to avoid those terrible problems that a that happen when the notice is not a single document and i believe that pereira does speak to a single document and i believe that a roscoe did foreshadow the coming of pereira because it was concerned about giving giving the the government giving the department of homeland security the light to serve any piece of paper it wanted in then later supplement it and they talked about a blank piece of paper and is that what we're going to defer to and congress has spoken and the supreme court has spoken and i believe we have to respect the fact that it is plain language of the law under the government view it could provide notice in several ways but it's interesting that in a wasco the nd notice was a notice to appear it was not a notice of hearing it was a notice to appear and it was a style document as per what congress had required we're not allowed to go to a dictionary decision of meaning many or or decide whether it makes sense or doesn't make sense we have to look at the plain meaning of the statute the phrase notice of hearing or anything resembling it doesn't appear in the law notice to appear appears in the law and that's what happened in the nd notice in iraq sco which changed the place of the war and that's why a roscoe force saw what was going to come and it came and said you just can't do that and when i went recently the amakosa we of the former judges of the immigration court many of them from arthur from our rd circuit including geoffrey chase they said it's not anything that's difficult to do we have the computerisation we have the ability to put the time and place on the notice of appear notice to appear and that's the