your honour's so turning to gonzalez valencia is another case where the removal proceedings below are not are not on the record not the audio recordings and this is a case where the served on january nd it was followed by a hearing notice that the defendant doesn't recall receiving or not receiving on january th for a january th hearing so one day to the removal hearing and as the court in the government discussed later whether or not hearing notice that one day yes hearings at eight thirty in the morning is faxed out at some point the previous day even assuming good service we don't know how late in the day and he says of course that he was just taken out of his well that morning but it best you know something less than a twenty four hours pretty clear i think that's a that's a fair reading of the of the record your honor is that it was twenty four hours or less prior to the hearing he did receive notice  turning to this discussion of time time later as the government will st reiterate that the timeliness question while it is certainly relevant in respect to whether or not these proceedings were full and with respect to a response procedural rights they don't speak to subject matter jurisdiction they don't speak to the lawful authority of the immigration court to hear that case in and here although the respondent doesn't contest service of a hearing notice the contest the service of an n c a a is essentially so i don't have to meet the requirements thirteen thousand and sixty i don't have to show that my rights were prejudiced in any way or that i pursued my administrative remedies and district court made a similar finding here basically implementing a ten day requirement that it pulled from a non jurisdictional statute to find a lack of jurisdiction caused by so service of a hearing notice less than ten days so although the hearing notice here was served less than earl one day or last prior to the removal hearing had it been served nine days prior to removal her hearing pursuant to the district court order nonetheless the immigration court would have lacked jurisdiction over this respondent in the end that just frankly is an un reasonable timeline given that it directly incorporates a statute that this court has already held has nothing to do with jurisdiction other than that the facts of this case are at least in the relevant way is very similar to to the other cases that have been argued so unless any of the judges have any questions for the were if the waiver were relevant to the court's analysis here we believe it would be if the defendant below had to raise some sort of procedural due process claim which he has and he's merely raising you know this because i think it may be because we're always most of the time when the circumstance of the government being the elite but here the government is the appellant and the guy has not been convicted or tried so it has to be quote and is there ready particular reason that other than deciding that there was duress stiction below that we should address any of these other issues that is we should if we give the government the way in let's  at that point because otherwise we're dealing and bolts of faery as my hypotheticals here that are really before us that would be more appropriate after a trial would be necessary regardless of whatever analysis is core reach because we don't have a conviction yet but the court this court couldn't reach any issue other than the jurisdictional issue their issue was raised by the  so the waiver is the villain of the of the waiver the knowing and intelligent character of that waiver those are open fact questions for the court but they don't they're not relevant to the issue here which is jurisdictional which is the only issue that's been raised by the the petitioners in all of these other issues they really ought to come up in the st instance before the district court if they raise them there isn't you know if there isn't a settlement or a plea bargain or anything  the only issue that the government can win or lose is the jurisdictional question there are there is no other issue before the court so if the court were to address the issue of the validity of the waiver of the ten day period or a waiver of an appeal in this or any of the other cases raise it would essentially be deciding those waivers sort of in a vacuum because there's no procedural claim that's been tied to them by the ellie's merely just stated that the immigration court didn't have jurisdiction full stop i don't have to show immigration courts lawful authority to even have him in the courtroom from the get go and so we just if this court were to decide the waiver which again i think the appropriate way to handle that would be remain because it's such a fact intensive question anyways is it would be doing it in a vacuum without any connection to a procedural violation so these that it would have to be your own counsel and we're going to reluctant to reach back to one of our prior cases but both counselor here and least in the case involving the voluntary departure issue that is an issue that both sides have asked the court to rule on in that particular case your honor i think to put it more specifically in that particular case the parties are asking this court to decide the aggravated felony issue because if this court determines that it was an aggravated felony at the time which  doesn't have to reach the waiver of appeal issue because that's why the rd i don't want to get us into too much on the merits of the case that has already been submitted so so i'm sorry i even asked i think faxed service of the notice of hearing so i think this court can affirm the district court's ruling on two possible grounds one choose death notice was never completed because there's not sufficient proof that mr hearings that ask if they received a notice to appear they never ask about hearing now with respect to the notice is being served less than ten days prior and the fact that the defendant signed a request for a bond hearing here now i think we may be missing a more substantive point under care and get the and for me there must be two step notice there must be a notice to appear which is the fact and a notice of hearing which cures those deficien and what this court indicated in care and give is that it should being cured in a timely fashion what does timely being at this point we don't know what this court appears to be considering is to saying well timely means at least diction what this court would be doing is saying we read it timely cure of the notice that was deficient to mean at least ten days because then it would comply with the nine b it would comply with all the reasons the ve it's not disputed that defendants and non citizens cannot weigh in subject matters diction a defendant cannot say yes i know this court doesn't have the matter jurisdiction over me but i want to proceed anyway i'm keizer view will and there is really thorough briefing on that issue and i you are as i don't know if the court intends to address that in that case but what i would argue to the court is that ultimately in all these cases if this is so in what they're going to do with it but certainly my impression was in the briefing and oral argument that was something of this was raised and we know there are some members of the supreme court that are quite interested in deference i would concur with that your hon think it's clear the supreme court is looking at this deference question in the shadows and i think as i recall the argument i believe kaiser came up so i think that is ultimately going to shed a lot of light on these