two issues that i'd like to discuss today the first one is the advance parole and the notice requirement and second one is the applicability of the twelve waiver under the advance on a move over just a bit for the microphone which is right there that amplifies doesn't just record doesn't amplify just look at that you need to speak up a little bit ok to my back under the advanced parole and notice for carmen the question is not whether the government can place an individual who leaves and reenters an exclusion proceedings but when the government shouldn't be allowed to do this and strip the ilian it's the beginning substantial and procedural rights without the proper notice this case is controlled by navarro i score  because a notice didn't inform the the petitioner that you lose her right to a deportation hearing and other words the potential relief was at stake and she didn't receive the proper notice she's a fifty six year old woman who left on  asylum application application was pending the warning on the form that she was crying said that if her request for asylum is denied she would be subject to exclusion proceedings she was paroled in her silent proceedings but the parole also also was valid only until july first of ninety seven which is an ambiguous in itself because when isn't valid and tell until the expiration date or until the asylum proceedings are complete after the expiration date she withdraws for the first time  barney barney was a case where the person traveled on advance parole while the adjustment application was pending and there are specific regulations in the act that say if you do that you can come back in for the adjustment but if the adjustment is denied you'll be an exclusion has this case rise or fall on the difference between the nod in withdrawn yes i think so because and your argument is that that that is that with brawn is significantly different than yeah i think so and i think that what tell us why you think i think the notice in this case is even more fun than the one and navarro because what she was essentially told on the notice says if you if you fail to prove your case in asylum that your sound case then you'll be placed in an exclusion proceedings or if the government makes and there are negative determination in your case then you'll be subject to exclusion proceedings she wasn't told anything about the fact what would happen  she could be returned revoked excluded if she failed to achieve against the feed she didn't win well the i mean if she went to a hearing and lost went to a hearing and have some kind of at the first determination in other words some reason for example saying they're sponsoring relatives died and she was not aware of that fact that's usually the case these are reaction but that's the kind of situation usually this is not that situation she did not have an immigrant visa  at the time that her i don't for the application was approved the priority date that's the date of the applications that they were considering for immigrant visas was august fourteenth one thousand nine hundred five that means only people who traveled there i won forty protections a waiver whether you consider her to be getting an immigrant visa or not when she's in the country and when the government's argument was she's not even getting an immigrant visa because she's in the country and two hundred twelve k doesn't apply that even if you buy her argument that she can get an immigrant visa in the country she was not going to be able to get one for probably three years or so so she didn't she wasn't even eligible for the waiver under her own theory because she did not have the two hundred twelve k and do and we're only asking that you do what everyone else be required to do pursuant to our she was in the country right that's the one exception that has been allowed to address some of the equities but similarly with an adjustment of status when they apply for adjustment of status they do get a work permit and the other argument that counsel made was that she should pursue the relief outside the country as everyone else had but the point is that she was here and she was given the opportunity to leave and return without a notice that she'll be forfeiting all of these rights that she had originally and that's the point that's where she's different from everyone else outside the country thank you for your argument thank both counsel for their argue the