i always took that as a term of endearment today we have a zero and i wouldn't quest reserved two to three minutes for the model if i could please very well we have a rather focused argument on an immigration case we don't often see cancelation cases come into the sixth circuit but this one is a very pointed reference to a statutory interpretation of whether voluntary departure would break the continuous presence required for cancellation we know that that is the the the issue that's been framed to us in our review of the case it appears that there may be a more straightforward resolution of the case and that involves the two thousand and three notice to appear maybe judge kathleen chicken well a order yet so i mean the board i mean it seems undisputed and the board in its decision refers to a notice to appear that was served on your client two thousand and three if so that terminates a period of continuous residency which makes him ineligible for this discretionary relief because he would not have the ten years continuous residency that's necessary for why doesn't that result case  know why would we the i believe then again seeing as how was it one of the issues in the case i didn't go there for research but i seem to recall a recent case and it may have been one circuit which generates a lot of these cases or maybe one of the they had an issue with the service breaking the continuity of the physical presence per merely because in that particular case they had the service of the notice to appear which often is done by the agent who interviews the respondent and then for ever went by before the case was over talkative before the court and some of the circuit court had a problem with exercising statutory break in the continuous presence based upon something like that i currently have a case right now with a caribbean client who was given a notice to appear by mail copy to me in march  thousand and fourteen and to this date has not been docketed with the immigration judge well i mean i guess again it's a seems pretty straightforward i mean the statute itself says the period of continuous physical presence shall be deemed to end when the alien is served with a notice to appear under section twelve twenty nine and the board's decision itself recites that he was given a notice of appear not notice to appear in connection with his voluntary departure in two thousand and four there the fact of this notice to appear is discussed in immigration court the judge and counsel referred to it oh i'm sure there seems to be no occasion for us to take on a difficult question of statutory interpretation when based upon the undisputed facts as reflected in the board's opinion the issue is simply not presented here unless we're missing something that is what the law says i'm aware of the statute in the discourse in the actual statute that service of the notice to appear  would break the continuity so there's nothing about the docketing of the subsequent acts of protocol to block that it doesn't the service but again again i didn't come prepared to deal with that issue because for some reason that wasn't articulated as a reason to preach or rich with the either the immigration judge or the board yet i'm not sure why because i've had to throw in my face often before  the other cases but in this particular case the issue you will you want time to respond i mean to say that you're here you're not quite prepared is something that you would want to i would i if this is an issue the court is looking at to determine whether that should go forward or not i would like to request the opportunity to myself for mr lewis whom appearing here for a bit today to taking a look into that issue because it's a good and i don't often run against this type of thing which type you need probably in a couple weeks or so for you know my schedule i mean it wouldn't be that just knowing that the panel is concerned because this is this year did jump out at us as we were reviewing the case and as judge kathleen said that issues of first impression i think for the six circuit it would i mean we could decide them but if if there is an easier way not to we will often go that direction and this would concern me a little bit was that it wasn't brief it wasn't raised by the other side but it is so obvious that it's almost like a plain error of like my congratulations to the panel for focusing on some of the arcane parts of the immigration law all right but  you go you have no reason to voice a different view with respect to this proposed  hc up there is that two thousand and three or two thousand and four notice to appear does not appear in the record and i believe the petitioner testified i appeared before an immigration judge i think he at one point said that was in two thousand and three at another point he said it was two thousand and four doesn't matter either way that would have broken the continuous presence that was needed however i don't believe that the petitioner specifically testified as to the date of service for that notice to appear and with that notice to appear not being in the record you know it's the government's request you know that the court simply affirmed the agency's conclusion that the two thousand and four voluntary departure in iraq i was concerned that the document was the record appreciate the fact to review the testimony again regarding this issue and i think the twenty a j letter that your honor suggested would provide the government with an excellent opportunity to do that my understanding of his testimony however was that he's testif that he appeared before an immigration judge and two thousand and three and or two thousand and four that does presuppose a notice to appear however i don't believe he specifically testified as to the date of that notice but again and you know the board references this in their opinion we are firm we review the board's reasoning and ratz if the petitioner has not objected to that particular direction to that fact that that statement is probably waived i mean not to the exclusion of what council's going to tell us but as far as the sort of her ends it business i mean there's not a lot of doubt it seems that right and i think that your honor raises an excellent point that you know if this court were to send this case back to the agency for fact finding about this earlier notice to appear it seems like that would really you know possibly just be an exercise in futility and a waste of everyone's time because it does seem so clear that he was placed in removal proceedings around two thousand and three which would break the continuous presence which needed to