regulations as we've interpreted are constitutional if somebody knows that of leaving correct correct or and your client voluntarily left yes he  voluntarily left ok how so so you know we're not facing the involuntary issue we might otherwise so the real question in this case for me at least is what's the state of the read on notice  never considered this evidence when deciding that the departure that he departed in that it should be withdrawn ok and then there's also a notice that sent to counsel that has that information  doesn't the record doesn't show not clear whether when when counsel received the notice versus when he actually depart and to be i never dealt with any of those issues correct your honor just because it just applied they just applied there whether or not you withdrawal right there with trouble is there a difference  departure needed to be considered intelligent and in this case there is no evidence that it in particular as the government tries to argue the notice the the written notice however there is no oral notice of the consequences of his departure and if the court does need to look to the facts we argue that procedural safeguards are perfect and this  and to give some context as to why procedural safeguards are appropriate i'd like to quickly review the evidence regarding this mr crespo was detained on u s soil by ice after his notice of appeal had been filed by his attorney of the same day i recognized some a new type of mental emergency and they placed him in safety so we can only guess as to what the mental emergency was because the government has not told us what happened they completely failed to advise mr crustless attorney why that's correct your honor our position is as in charge as garcia the court should have orally presented to him the consequences of his departure without that the departure could not be considered intelligent or considered given petitioners that if they depart from the country they may be withdrawing their appeal why isn't that sufficient notice to the petitioner that the part of the country may end up withdrawing his or her appeal to be to be i notice argument was argued below there is no nothing in the record to say that it was argued below how however there's nothing to show that it was it was provided to  and again if the facts are looked at in this case we believe that in the matter of m e m requires the d it requires d h as you can to has a continuous obligation given the change only we would like to we would like to just go back to the cases we have provided a line of cases starting with dia august and notice was not sufficient i believe in our opposition to withdraw i'm sorry our opposition to the government to withdraw and appeal package i think that could be read to indicate that the appeal package is included the instructions for filing an appeal that white washed that's my problem how do i conclude that the appeal packages was and then you have his attorney in his brief to the board referencing instructions and conceding that these instructions are part of the form you are twenty said if you look at his notice of appeal  don't make their way to minister to record but luckily here for the government we have the attorney quoting the instructions arm with regard to this issue so we're asking the court to look at those multiple was here we're at a different part in the case where appeal has not only been with the reserve but it's also been taken so we know that the petition was intense we then have to look less at whether his actions were knowing and intelligent with regard to his departure because we already know that at some point he until we assume again if you certificate of service just to say that they were they're not part of the administrative record and it's not clear that the attorney received them on the days that the government is a se h so going back to your question whether or not we identified issues with receiving such notices i think that we did that