this case is whether at the time the government executed my client's removal order whether it was invalid at the time should the court agree that it wasn't valid at the time then we would argue that under these standards set forth in the recent  well unfortunately we are at a disadvantage your honor because we don't have the notice to appear the only document the government deems fit to produce was he this order which is found at the record p or three most relevant is that page one omits any reference to an address the nd page confirms that there is no address because the immigration judge checked off a box that said that the respondent had failed that the petitioner i should say had failed to provide an address but as i'm sure the court knows the petitioner has maintained that he hold the government where he was going to be seeing that in fact the record a forty four when he's being interviewed for his reasonable fear determination he specifically tells the officer that when he was arrested upon entry into the country on august rd of two thousand and five he told the officers declares that the notice to appear did not have the date or the time in the location as required obviously at the time that we briefed the issue the argument that we were making was that if the location of the chord was not listed in decision in for men for closer than argument but we still have to get back to with the original question is whether or not at the time the order secured in two thousand and thirteen when my client was yes i would agree with that but i would also add your honor respectfully that i think that in the id end of the day the government is going to reinstate orders or people that were issued when the alien was present in court and obviously i'm not sure statistically with the number would be but there's obviously going to be a certain number of cases where the alien failed to appear and was ordered deported in absentia i believe that in those cases where vega is basically asking for is that the court at the very least be of any change of address and i'm and i'm asking for that because it's in the statute so presumably the judge should have followed that statute when ordering the end of sensual order the problem we have is that the record doesn't have that and unless the record produces that evidence then i don't believe that the government has met their burden to show that the prior order to remove all was valid and i would argue that it's somewhat discussed in passing but i think it is relevant your honor this is very much similar to the criminal illegal reentry cases where the courts have made it clear that before you can prosecute someone for a legal reality entry argue no no what i was going to argue your honor is that i believe that prior to the going you know there was it was somewhat unclear what the garcia ring tone gross miscarriage of justice exception would entail but i on what i understood for i mean to argue is that in terms of when you can find but essentially the argument is that even if a notice to appear lacks the date time  should if a subsequent hearing what is was mailed or or or or provided then in theory there is no question of personal jurisdiction over the alien in order to proceed with the case  again i recognize that in theory you can still preserve the argument here because again there is no evidence of a subsequent hearing notice and there is no evidence that the date time in location of the prisoners hearing in san antonio was listed on the notice to appear and it has to be either or it has to be either in the notice to appear charging document or it has to be listed in a subsequent notice to appear so i'm not conceding that for men forecloses my argument because i don't believe that the evidence has been produced but i do read it nice terms of the issue of lack of jurisdiction that enter all the way to l a when i last for heber and they never let me know i had an appointment with immigration court close quote and that's not quite the same thing you're saying he gave them an address  while he does tell them that he's going to l a to his ends and i would argue respectfully page eight of the record which is the i two hundred and thirteen form which was what was produced by the government when the order to be moved it was reinstated in two thousand and thirteen specifically under the section titled immigration history it says that he was it was served with a notice to appear and released on his own record in a sense and served with what is called a form i to can release anyone on their own recognizance you would have to produce some type of address i don't think that it's the government's routine to lead people go of custody without having some type of affirmative address and  i mean with the immigration judge it was strictly limited to deciding whether or not to what the asylum officers negative credibility negative well is this is not to buy that he had a reasonable fear qualify that is correct your honor the case because of the procedure least once you have a reinstatement ordered an issue the immigration judge just solely agree into this case has to do with the negative reasonable fear determination made by officer but the immigration judge was in los angeles and everybody took place in san antonio so technically jurisdiction to consider any type of challenge would more than likely lie with the senate twenty immigration court but would you that that authority also lies in your honour's hands because it can be brought as a challenge to a reinstatement order based on begun young the attorney general mr listen that did have an available avenue to challenge whether he received notice he could file a motion to reopen which is his statutory right and this court recognized in miller that even though the reinstatement statute bars reopening when compared to the reopening statute with which grants an alien a right to file a motion to reopen they're incompatible and the motion to reopen trumps it so if mr le sama argues that he did not have notice of his hearing then he needs to file a motion to reopen and rescind that removal order that's a statutory right and that would resolve any factual issues that would need to be can provide presented to the immigration judge so your your position is that we can address that's not properly before us whether he received the proper notice in this in this petition no because it's never been presented to the agency and if you look at the the end of censure order that the immigration judge did enter it states that he was personally served with a notice to  appear based on my experience a notice to appear specifically warrants of the obligation to notify the immigration court of an address where a later notice of hearing can be sent and then the order goes on to state that can be filed with the board or in this case with the immigration judge and alec resolved if he has a claim that he gave an address he would need to submit evidentiary material to support that i mean those are factual findings that need to be made in the st instance with the immigration judge and then he could then petition for review of the denial of a motion to reopen and that's what this court was faced with miller it was even though a removal order was reinstated and the alien filed a motion to reopen and the board held that it didn't have the authority but this court held that it did in remitted or to consider the motion to reopen what is a review it's not a question of waiver it's not that he's waived the argument by not having r d it's that it's not really right for our consideration because he has another avenue to raise it before we get to her and that's why going to be a factual inquiry that the that the immigration court is better able to me yes judge hogan so the only challenge he's really making is the denial of the reinstatement of that prior order and the only limited review this court has of that reinstatement is whether he is an alien and he has a prior water and whether he illegally reentered and although the court recognized and that or you can look for a gross miscarriage of justice in the underlying order you know the only argument you really raised in his opening brief is that the immigration court lacked jurisdiction because the notice to appear lacked the day in time and that's a very narrow argument and one that is squarely foreclosed by the course decision both and hearing  your firm and so i those are the two very narrow issues the courts considering in this petition and that leaves only his reasonable fear claim which he does not seem to present in his opening argument  but is clearly supported by substantial evidence in this record the only claim he raised in his opening brief was that he will be targeted based on familial relationships but he did not argue before the asylum officer or the immigration judge that  would be harmed based on his family he argued that he would be harmed because he failed to pay the gang a ransom or rent or whatever he called it and that was his only fear of harm also because right is that a family unit persecution ground that could give rise to reasonable fear i would say best case scenario it like give rise to a reasonable fear for those family members but not to himself why did he is that true though because i mean if again is willing to go after his family members why is it reasonable to assume that they would go after  the gang has shown that it will go after him but it's not because his last name is listen rivera it's because he failed to pay them the money they demanded when he was deported and two thousand and seventeen they came to his house they said we know you just got to portage and we know the new people they get deported from america have bring money with you so we want that money and he said no i'm not going to pay you i don't have the money they came back and they harmed him and said if you don't get the money we're going to harm you further and i would also add that you didn't provide any testimony to say that his family members were specifically targeted because they were his family either the  details were vague about just a husband being shot at on her motorcycle and that it was the end this gang or that his cousin shot car was shot and it was the end of day there's no evidence that he presented to show that any of these incidents are connected we know that the country is plagued by violence but he needs to show that there's a reasonable possibility that he's going to establish that he's got that nexus to a protected ground and he just this record would not compel that conclusion a reasonable immigration judge would not be compelled to find in these expedited inefficient hearings that he made that claim my main concern is that the i c really didn't address the  because they're any longer interested in extortion but because they're are afraid he's going after them because they went after his family because of that very badly but i think you probably know that  hotels not just the husband and the wife but other family members and there was evidence presented in the record that that was the motive but here the motive the only motive he presented was that again thought that he was he had money because he just a claim that's explicitly rejected we don't have that extortion plus in this case it really was based you're really arguing it caused you i mean in the other case she would be target as a result of the family being argued here the bambis being targeted as a result is actual action and that's how you're missing was you know is the case is that is that right summary or  not yeah i would say that that's even a best reading because he didn't specifically testify either to the asylum officer or the immigration judge that his family members were specifically targeted because of him so i think that's even a best reading of the case he just said that these other family members were harmed he didn't really elaborate or present any evidence or affidavits or anything from these other family members why why islam and why isn't that enough i mean if if i leave the country and i have family members and nine of them are right why am i why do i not satisfy reasonable fear by return because nine of my family members have act it to a statutorily protected ground it's not enough to fear strife and gang violence in your country i mean is deplorable and it's awful but the statute requires a clear link a reason that  he's being targeted a reason he's being targeted is for one of the statutorily protected grounds and the immigration judge made a reasonable decision that you fail to do that and the only reason this court could go in reverse that is to say that this membership in a particular social group family has always been recognised the definition of family doesn't explicitly limit family to you know mom dad brother sister ship if that  family and as a result of going after the family they got to the petition and i would agree to an extent it mr some of does tell the officer that after he went to go live with his cousin for two months once he leaves that they went back and they harm the cousin that was there you had the other cousin that was on the motorcycle that low arm by the gang members it tells you this or that at the point it would be interview they were still looking for him so i think at some point you're right your honor it might have been him that would be indirectly targeted but i don't think that rio's or a yellow precludes from a group evolving and becoming based on family it might have possibility of a motion to reopen but as i explained in my rule twenty eight a letter that opportunity with the th circuit was not available in two thousand and seventeen when he was arrested moreover i think that once the government who has the option to either let mr go home and filed a motion to reopen and hold on and wait on issue to reinstatement order once they've elected to file the reinstatement order against them i think the issue is ripe because the government has made that decision and i