proceeding which was then used as an element of the crime in the thirteen twenty six progression and we submit that the date that he erroneously represented that he had orally stated the consequences of failing to appear to my client and that he had provided to him a written notice in spanish of the seventh he asked for a spanish interpreter at that time it was by statute required that the ins provide him with a written notice and he didn't get the written notice excuse me  got a written notice but they are required to provide him with a written notice in spanish and they didn't do that and that resulted in exactly the kind of prejudice which that written notice was designed to alleviate but with a written notice in spanish have done what would it affect differently it would have provided to him in spanish the date that he was to appear but he didn't show up in december that's true he showed up on the fourteenth and so the text of the warning hadn't been in spanish would have changed anything about the way that the date which was hand written  the part that he misconstrued was the typewritten portion of that note which you have to look down for because the heart that was handwritten was in much larger writing on a separate line right near the top of the form including including the ear amber and the mom i understand what you're saying but he he wouldn't have missed he would have made the mistake that he made misconstruing the your hearing will not be s earlier than fourteen days from the date of this notice because he would have read that in spanish who have realized that that's not not mr shot the sudden never said that he didn't he didn't that he didn't understand m declaration in support of his motion to reopen that if the court if the if they're hearing officer would grant relief that in the future he would make sure that his attorney and his wife read the documents so that there would not be any the typewritten portion and he construed the fourteen in that paragraph that you're hearing would not be earlier than fourteen fourteen days from the date of this notice he misconstrued that as the date that he was supposed to appear that would not have occurred if he had been given the spanish notice that the ins was required to g part of the argument is what we're addressing right now the other part of the argument is that the ins was required to  accurately provide a record when the alien has no attorney present and their record in trees falsely reflects that he was given the spanish written notice and that he was orally told of the consequences of failure to appear on february twenty seventh and those faults record entries were then relied upon by the hearing officer in determining the yes instead of the the the record reflecting that he says he only spoke spanish only read spanish as far as the ins knew he was only fluent in spanish and they gave him an english notice and that's the reason why he says that he didn't show up at the right time he made a mistake and the hearing officer pointed out that this written notice sir is the only reminder that you're going to get out of the clarification it was not the ins who was conducting this hearing it was the executive office of immigration review they are a separate agency so this information the accounts background was advised orally when he was supposed to appear before the court also the fourteen day reference was as the court he pointed out completely separate from the date that he was supposed to attend  hearing there was no reference to a month around that fourteen numerical notation and i think it's also important to now that the appellant did file motions to reopen and appeals with the board of immigration appeals and never raised the specific issue of the lack of notice with those agencies so for him to now raise this issue eight years later is i think an indication that he missed i think he must read the notice not that the fact that he did not receive this notice in spanish that was canned written really made a difference also important to note that even if there was an inaccurate record in order for the appellant to be successful in his claim he needs to show prejudice and there is the president in this case he had the right to judicial review to go before the v i i go back to the immigration judge and the v a and present these issues and there was nothing precluding him vs review available to him if he had wanted to pursue that avenue at that point in time the law was such that he could have pursued that added it was unclear whether that was available but was there to your point for the court to be aware of is there's an representations in the appellant's brief that he is eligible for to see relief which is why she also met with motley would have been pursuing had he attended that hearing and that would not have been available to him at that time the first hearing that he missed was a master calendar hearing it was a preliminary hearing it wasn't a hearing for the merits and all likelihood what would have happened is he would have attended that hearing the judge would have reset or rescheduled his hearing at a later date past the april twenty third deadline and he would not be eligible for to cross the relief so in the end even assuming that in a  erroneous record was created he was not prejudiced at all i think the other point i would just like to reiterate is that there were other safeguards in place at the time written notice of and hearing in the consequences of failure to appear at his previous hearing and he was told in spanish that there was going to be a spanish version available to him if he wanted it and he elected not to take that honor there is no violation of due process here because there are other procedural safeguards in place to cover that and secondly even if there was a violation of due process there's no prejudice to him because first of all he had other avenues of judicial review available to him that could have copped attention to this problem and secondly it's highly unlikely at that point in time the relief would have been available  i disagree  disruption on the family to the non elite and members family members and so we submit that he made a factual showing that he was not only eligible will proceed for the last case on the calendar this morning and this week united states versus some counts were present they come forward