keen to me when the clock was already running i did work for the firm that initially represented this particular petitioner he came to me after i left and we came to me only had a matter of days before the clock ran on this particular case you needed it when coming to my office i  contained every document that is contained within that record and second of all your honor the board left in its right office presumably prepared that index how that happened but that still doesn't go to the question that i'm concerned for immigration review which says order it contains the signature of i believe it's frederick cass is a member of the board of immigration appeals and it's got a date of september sixteenth it's not date of the order i think i understand that there's obviously obviously there was confusion but i'm i'm still wondering whether that's chargeable to abort because trials hearings and appeals that automated system provides that the date of the removal order was in fact september seventeenth two thousand and two so the board itself in its own automated system provides for that information and giv  understood that much like a clerk's office a judge may sign an order on one day but it isn't until the clerk actually enters the order and issues that all the time period got i'm going to be true for some changed if you had received a communication identical to this would you have computed it from the day of the voters or from the date of the order i would have done it your honor from the date of the order of reply believe that isn't like the order of date of this or don't we have to do that though in order to excuse the noncompliance with the statute under the case law don't we have to find that on these facts it was misleading you know i believe that you can find that it was because because clearly i believe it was but i also believe that we should look at the date on the first page of the this two page talking to because generally that is the same date that appears on the second page of that document but for some reason in this case those two dates don't ask help the subjective impressions do not provide a rational basis for separating legal individuals and those who are here illegally subjective impressions was that the testimony about the sandals and the subjective but in any other kind of a fourth amendment context a history of criminal conduct and smuggling occurring an unknown location near the border based fact which includes a history of prior illegal conduct occurring at a location that the officers have decided to stake out because they know that's where crimes are committed you know the reason like i'd call a subjective is because there is a factor that particular case they say look if you think this criminality occurring in this place if you think there's any smuggling set up a checkpoint or to set up a checkpoint and that way you can avoid these times based on factors that you not rise to the level of a reasonable suspicion and so therefore evidence to analyze the evidence to compare with case law to compare with this class knowledge as one is so forth there was no way to get that information is is this the case where there was a two month adjournment in which your client was given the opportunity to review the evidence to call additional witnesses or to recall the witnesses if you wanted counsel announced two months later no i'm just going to rest from my brief yesterday and how was the constitution offended and they can reply and you can get a panel of judges to decide it but the judges never look at these in the circuit it's the staff attorneys i believe that i know because of the general order right right and the general order doesn't comply with statements of those witnesses until after the witness has testified on direct examination so it's not uncommon although judges don't like it for defense counsel not to give statements of the witnesses just testified and tell just this time at the trial and then you run into the problem that obviously you ran into here where you get either ten or fifteen minutes where you asked for an adjournment proceeding at the trial so that you can prepare a more effective cross examination that's right i would say that the major difference to the janks act is that if in a criminal case that by statute is permissible then how is due process offended in a civil immigration case where the judge essentially gives you an