minutes for rebuttal several issues for raising the braves today we'd like to focus on at least we would submit the one principle issue that to be addressed that we believe that all the other issues are related to and that honor what we believe is that the actual regulation allows would have allowed any period at least thirty days upon notification that there was an error or that there had been a failure to pay the one thousand stoppel argument in part your honor but i think after we've reviewed it we believe that the failure to follow the the ins regulations and the failure of the immigration judge when it was raised before the immigration judge where he just said that there was no jurisdiction reference in there we were also talking about the the rescission procedure still under two forty six which is a related issue but but in review after we've looked at all the briefing i mean that is the core issue that we want to  honor i mean i thought we had raised it in the structure of the argument because we do cite that citation and it had been raised the issue of pain the thousand dollar penalty fees have been raised before the immigration judges have been raised and been raised i believe also in that argument the prior council also made for them to be and there was even a notation in there that the one thousand dollars penalty fee had been paid and it's actually in the administrative records there  is there is the receipt for it in there too in addition to the reference to that through the other briefs on a few assuming the argument is properly in front of us and i do think your argument has gotten a little better between the time of writing the surely wouldn't comply well in fact as of the date of this letter if that's letter had had one of those supplements in the thousand dollars we wouldn't be here so why how can i get past the fact that she had an a thousand dollars right there had she read section she didn't do it well your honor i think that the regulations says that she spoke supposed to be given a notice and be notified at the time to do it and if i understand your argument is your pointing out the park house will have a den a fight at least at some point after that but in any event she didn't pay it by may nineteenth i believe in two thousand and the outside of thirty days requests for relief and any required additional unless supplement to form i forty five in any required to dismantle some is filed within thirty days of the date of the notice and to us that seems to require that the now if that had been a proper notice that unknown is probably shouldn't send you have thirty days to send in your thousand dollars but you're saying the government doesn't even have the power to say that because we've all been  many other cases are not so time sensitive as these so it's not a regulation which has no role in the interaction of the regulation the granting that this is in the regulation simply to be unworkable if there's a way of constraint things really work i think that's the way you should construe it you considered such a way that as soon as on september twentieth she hands in her application on which it appears from the face of the application that she needs to handle my house in hours as soon as she does that she's got ten days to cure it even though she doesn't know that there's a problem she doesn't know it here the be able to and even though the government does not send out the require notice until october thirteenth which in your view is already too thirteen is too late to do anything how can that be in the law assume for the purposes of argument and i don't ask you to see this let's assume that if we think that her rights were violated it is within the jurisdiction either of this court or of the immigration court to order that she be given the visa so and they for reasons of their own decide not to send her the militants and tell the twentieth of october already fallen just to make them do that well of course you know at this point of course yes or of course something else i have a hand they do that they can they can do that consideration of this case but there's a distinct difference in korea ok so the alien in that case did not specifically get the issue of these that there was no specific visa number on the diversity lottery cases that were allocated to her were revoked but there's no evidence and here what he looks to have page seventy seven is a request notice that says please cancel all three had to revoke for lack of eligibility if you look at the top there there are the fa numbers the fax correspondence numbers and dates those facts correspond its numbers and dates and times were all for september thirteenth and that was and they were all on the initial receipt if you looked at page before or the page later on i misread record seventy eight same numbers out there that page page seventy seven is in fact just a photocopy of what's that page seventy eight and show that that was the original request for the allocation of these numbers there's no proof in this record it off other than that somebody wrote something that says please cancel we're arguing that they can't cancel something that they've already issued and she's already assumed that this is one of the exhibits they presented to the immigration judge now the last thing i wanted to point out if i could because i guess and i met my stuff on it here is that so far as alternatives for granting relief in our reply brief at page discuss that there are at least apparently three cases where the ins was ordered or it jus dictated these a lottery petitions after the end of the fiscal year those three cases mention those in part her dear versus she chain eligible when she was given that number and that mr status at that time and in terms of relief there are court examples of where they have allowed this kind of remedy to cure the problem and what we're all doing here is trying to argue whether she was eligible for each year under two forty five point ten d and we have court cases some of those were the rife in the initial court cases that the government's side and its three citations forty four consider that thousand dollars as being timely five thank you very much thank you thank you both for your arguments you sometimes do versus the ashcroft is now submitted for decision