and it we do have just stating on the record we do have it appears that it jostle and lopez right who is representing the respondent is appearing by video and is in washington d c is that correct of chronological points and i'd like to make regarding that my client came to united states in one thousand nine hundred eight at the age of fourteen illegally his father was here since one thousand nine hundred s a permanent resident he petition him it took a long time but eventually in the year two thousand he got his green card i'm sorry in two thousand he got his advance parole which is different from parole from outside because it's parole that is given inside the united states so that the person can go out and return freely  in two thousand to february two thousand and two he received his green card and in march of two thousand and eight he was arrested at the port of entry because found in his vehicle was a young lady who was attempting to enter the united states illegally and he was charged with smuggling her eventually years later he admitted the allegation initially he contested it because there was a matter pending before this to get such a video which question whether a person in such situation was supposed to have received notice of the right to counsel and he was not given that notice eventually the board of immigration appeals ruled that it was not necessary to receive notice so that the case proceeded at thought that we have pereira yes but all right but i guess the question here if your client if we just accept the fact that his first notice wasn't adequate there are subsequent notices in this case and so well except that the march fourteenth twenty two thousand and eight did not identify the time date or location for mr lopez's you have facts where there's this deficient notice to appear and then many many years later with no corrections then the supreme court basically says ok well you can't you know you can't hold that against him but here you've got to adequate notice appear to be valid must have several elements including without that and with specificity the time in place when the hearing is going to take place time date and location ye stated the supreme court stated that the notice to appear is the only document that controls and that the notice to appear in justice of the more you're very clearly states for purposes of twelve twenty nine be pereira decision say we are overruling papa it does not it does not so it doesn't specifically say you would have to argue implicitly yes but the facts and pereiro weren't anything like the facts in your case  pereira the guy got one or i don't know if it was a woman or man that per the perera got one deficient notice and then a decade later they want to remove him right i understand and your honor the the difficulty i think in understanding this for most people that don't practice immigration law full time is the terminology a notice to appear is really a charging document it is the same it is equal in a complaint in a criminal case or or even in a civil case the notice of hearing is simply a notice issued by the court it's an administrative thing whereas the other is a statutory thing it is would vest jurisdiction with the court the notice of hearing the fact that both terms include the word notice does not mean anything one notifies a person that the hearing is being held in such a place with judge so and so at this time and that is used very often to change ok let me ask you this since since you're pulling out the card but the way that the practitioners it's a different situation let's just say that if we were of the view that herrera doesn't specifically address the exact issue why shouldn't this go back to the agency to make a determination in the first place because the agency whether a notice a defective notice of a pair can be supplemented why shouldn't they have the first crack at it because there's there is case law that indicates left the agency speak to it first and then let it work its way up and they haven't spoken to it right well first of all your honor well let's say you're not going to win here why not give the agency the first crack well i'll try to dress up the the nurse to appear can be revised by the immigration service that's department homeland security so for referring to the agency as the department of homeland security the department of homeland security does revise its notices to appear and it changes it very frequently because the immigration judge simply will say this doesn't state a claim this doesn't comply with the requirements i can dismiss the case or you can go on redo your notice to appear which is again the charging document it is not the notice of hearing which is simply an administrative document issued by the court for because it sets the time it may have changed judges it specific time date and place exactly my point your honor because what data says is the charging document the notice to appear must with specificity say what is the time and place  location of the hearing if you do not mean that you do not have a notice to appear your complaint in this case is defective there is no jurisdiction stop time tell me so i understand your argument it's about notice to the petitioner you know because we want people to know what they have to do so what is wrong with the april and june notices in this case your honor that would be the same as a federal district court doing the work of the prosecutor and saying well your complaint is defective for these reasons let me fix it for what doesn't give your client notice there it's about giving your client notice of what your client has to do time dat location you know what is wrong with it justice sotomayor addressed it and she said in the charging document in the notice to appear the statute specifically says you must provide in the notice to appear not subsequently she addressed the fact case your honor that's again we're with all due respect the court is mistaken there is one notice to appear in every case there was one complaint the noticed of hearing is not a notice to a so if we accept your view if first summer so there's all these cases out there that the first one wasn't ok it can never be corrected the it can be corrected it's like amending a complaint your honor it's not like saying you know we're sending you a separate notice that you know we've changed our mind instead of coming on tuesday please come on wednesday and such and such a time the notice of hearing is not a notice to appear it is simply an administrative document issued by a court the court is not the department of homeland security jurisdiction vests in the immigration  when a notice to appear that is the charging document has all elements complied with a notice to appear can be amended as i said earlier but it has to be amended by the department of homeland security not by the judge not by the immigration current i think i'm a lawyer i look forward to hearing what the government has to say about that so then do you want is a little more time oh yeah no i mean i'm just wondering if you want to move to other points because you have you have your parole point to write yes and you wanted to say four minutes so i don't want to tie you up on that day so as far as what i was starting to point out to the courts when my client admitted the allegations when he admitted that he was removable and that minute the charges at that point he and by the way if we if we agree to the stop time rule then it stopped at six years and one month so he was eleven months shy of being eligible on his own however at that time there was a case from this court called spot and under what was best but if you had entered the united states as a minor as he did at the age of fourteen you were entitled does reflect that that he in fact the immigration judge said i assume that you're relying on ques and i said yes your honor i'm not i'm relying on whether us for applying for cancellation after he made the decision to eligible to take advantage of his father's residence status so that is why he was not eligible for cancellation not for any other reason again the stop time rule does not stop in his case and i would appreciate it all right we're ready for the government it has to be in the notice to appear i think our position is consistent with the supreme court's language ana because the government is not is not arguing that the defective notice to appear a trigger stop time rule under prarie you can't argue that and in this case the notice to appear is missing the relevant information regarding the time and place of his hearing so we're not arguing the case to appear by itself triggers to stop time rule the government's position is that it knows to hear combined with the subsequently mailed out notices and hearing be sure the defects in the n t a because is that it just has to be another n t a i think that yes position and so that even though it appears by on this record that the petitioner did have notice of time date  with two other things that occurred if pereira doesn't the facts and pereira were different so perera really doesn't stand for the authority that you're asking it to stand for and it doesn't really stand for the authority that petitioners asking it to stand for we just say it doesn't really address it in my view so what is your best authority that an m t a can be cured by that missing information would be sufficient to satisfy the notice requirements of section two thirty nine a of the innovation nationality act and i agree to a career that doesn't stand for what we're arguing we're arguing is that credit didn't didn't address this issue and so it isn't pereira isn't controlling to the extent that pereira says it effective and t a is is insufficient to trigger the stop time roll we're clear to me whether he was saying that with respect to the stop time ruler he was arguing jurisdiction because at one point he said it didn't vest in the vision court of jurisdiction i believe that that issue if arguments that he's making goes to the  why wouldn't it make sense in this situation to send it back to the agency to they happen opined on this correct and the agent knows all that and outs and give them the first notice of time in place and in the notice to appear and therefore providing the missing information in a later notice to appear was permissible didn't and pereira rejected this argument explaining that administrative realities do not excuse the failure to provide specific time date place information rather the initial notice to appear must at that time  necessary subsequent written notice specifying a new time and place to be provided context of a set of their argument that the n t a date would be the triggering date for the stop time rule the government's position isn't inconsistent with what the supreme court said and herrera because we're not arguing that the  cannot trigger a stop time role and we agree with that but if the m t a defects are cured by a subsequently email notice it hearing as it was in this case those two documents combined i don't think there's anything in her that held if we were to hold that the notice of hearing in this case did not cure the defective notice to appear in an opinion would that create a split in the circuits cigarettes ok all right let me just quickly i know we're going to die over time but i have this question what would have to happen here for the petitioner to prevail what would this  profile on what he's asking for first it would have to be that he can't the notice to appear can't be cured ok but on or anything else so then there's no stop time that's correct there would be no stop time rule he would be accruing residence and so the admission be admitted in a status issue which is the other issue the still lives for the son in this case with fall out because the  it's not in their right or not i'm not sure but and this is pure speculation but it's because i think it's because he was and apprehended at the border for during an alien smuggling situation and so when he gave his they wanted to wait and see which with which court will be more convenient for the m the case and what issues will be it will be implicated for example if he was if they needed one witness testimony from the border agents or anything like it seemed as if there were worse remember them and the number of cases where they just didn't do or and is there any reason for that i mean i forget the number that was given  that's the that was that was that was the practice i believe after him because they and the immigration service didn't have access to the immigration part sockets and so they couldn't put a cap they couldn't put a hearing iraq calendar date that would be a valid one and now i am not aware of the state of the logistics of that  reports the number of cases that that government counsel said were not given time and date in was according to counsel almost one hundred percent of the cases that's a lot of cases and they simply did it because they didn't think they had to they could get away with not doing it and nobody ever questioned them on it a flurry of motions to terminate were filed including several from my office and as a consequence of that up the immigration service started putting dates false dates but dates on the notice to appear for goods they were just put a note a time and a date and then they let the court sort it out which essentially i guess would cover the meaning of the statute because it did have a time and a date and a place to be sorted out later by the court but they did not do it three now are sort of has an attitude to it that your honor i will so at that i mean that kind of means like they're not doing their job and that there it's i mean are you saying that was  i don't know that i mean false has it's not well i'll give you an example not it's not a neutral word ok i've got a given example generally thirty first two thousand and nineteen over five hundred people showed up at the immigration court in san diego because they all have notices to appear that have bet that the immigration court cannot accommodate that many people and they had people in the lobby of the of the building outside with clerks of the court giving them corrected  because nobody bothered to do the right to do their job so yes it is a falsity and that's i stand by it i'm not trying to be offensive but i'm trying to be honest with you and i'm trying to be truthful most bet provide did not fulfill the requirements of the statute the notice to appear is a statutory defined document and if you don't meet it you don't need it any more than you meet a complaint if you don't meet the the statutory requirements put is akin to applying a vaccine post infection you don't do it you do it ahead of time you cure the problem before and you don't let an infection occur something you have to try to try to treat it and position that a single document the notice to appear must comply with certain requirements for the stop time rule and different ones from vesting jurisdiction and the immigration court the facts and data and the facts in order and so are not dissimilar to the fact that one receives the post service notices by the court does not cure the problem it is a statutory interpretation problem and that's what it is about and that's what justice what the my you're sent a three wheeled chevy is not a and they do do that routinely i have had numerous cases i've been doing this for thirty six years and i have numerous cases where they have issued amended notices to appear or superseding notices to appear at the p stop time well yes because it would be the service of the notice to appear or superseding notice to appear is a new notice to appear just like a complaint in a criminal case is a different superseding complaint is a different complaint