submit that there is jurisdiction on this matter because the jurisdiction derives from filing the petition for review thirty days after the motion to reopen was denied we believe that one of the primary issues here is that respondent in several points in the brief had stated that there was no established standards in order for the b i e a to sue a sponsor the real than a case however if there are cases that say that there is need to be exceptional circumstances that due process is being violated because the person whom the denial was sent to never got not us and therefore could not do a petition for review therefore could not make the decision whether or not they wanted to leave and the attorney there after sent not as to the clients who then it was returned as undeliverable and so there was constructive in others there's no doubt about that that the b i a did send to the attorney and the attorney did receive it but it never got in the hands of the clients in time for them to decide whether they wanted to do a petition for review or leave under voluntary departure the clients didn't give their attorney their new address apparently they didn't have the current address because of that we believe that under due process standards that that should be a sufficient basis and wish to sue a sponte reopen the case so that they would have their opportunity whether to do the petition for review or whether to leave under voluntary departure also we believe that it's in the public interest to ensure that due process is followed since due process is given to aliens in this respect that the competing interests of having the final the partake in order versus having one's constitutional rights afforded to them we believe that there is a more interest in the public showing that the due process rights are afforded to an alien in this respect where they were originally going to going to go in under a motion to reopen the g y our case makes very clear that they have to have actual know those of the decision not just constructed not as this is just one step past that when you know they would have the opportunity to do the decision for review and if they don't have actual knowledge as of a denial from the b ira how are they receiving any due process in which to be able to go to the next step th hardship they're suffering now are one they have a deportation order and and upon being deported many years before they're able to come back to the united states legally they can't come back unless all kinds of potentials are filed and they don't have the opportunity to have voluntary departure and so yes i believe that without actual notice there is no due process in this particular matter we're asking that the relief that be issued in this assume that your honour's agree that due process has been violated it would seem to me that it is within the jurisdiction of this court to place the person back in the place they would be had their due process not been violated and that would be to have the  have the proper address in which to mail off the notice for this particular matter and so based upon that we don't believe there is an ineffective assistance of counsel in this respect i'd like to reserve the rest of my time for rebuttal right definition of exceptional circumstances a flexible to the board's response a power under the regulations therefore there is no guidance as to what circumstances nearly an must show to qualify as exceptional circumstances and further board they were aware that their appeal is pending they then they had an attorney and and on this record we know that they didn't that they didn't notify the board of their address we don't know it's unclear whether they notified their question is your honor if it comes down to what are exceptional circumstances to permit the v i i to do is to respond to reopening and there are no case law that specifically state that a violation of the regulations that permit the guy to sue a sponsor you were open we would submit that those regulations themselves are vague and ambiguous and need to be visited in order to determine what the standards are saying that there is no jurisdiction of the plan whether there should be a suicide bomb to reopening and the court looking at the actual statute itself and stating that that statute itself doesn't provide sufficient guidance i greg in that case yes your honor yes your honor and and also just just to to note they do have a deportation order the h s can go to their house tomorrow forcibly put them r i believe that those are the it is i'm not one hundred percent sure i know that they're just children under ten and as far as counsel statement that there should be reasonable diligence and was great care of them were the children over the children have a to go with them i mean if the children want to if they want to take the children it's their option and you know the just can't touch the child in one way or another so if the children have to go with them the children will go with them away from the united states for however many years until they can come back and say well years as it's ten years younger that's correct and then and then there has to be all kinds of petitions in order to come back after that so