the court there are three main issues in this case the st issue is the stop time rule in regards to eligibility for cancellation of removal the nd issue is equitable in regards to in regards to the st issue the board in its decision actually never addressed mr me as claim for eligibility for cancellation of removal that was raised in the context of a motion to reopen and the board's decision only considered his motion to reconsider however the board in another to us in matter of mendoza hernandez has ruled that there that the two step approach applies this decision is actually a pending before the supreme court in is tabbed as the bar that was argued earlier in november and the same issue has been decided by the rd in the th circuit and so we would request that regarding this issue it may be wise to wait for the supreme court's decision however in reference to equitable and mr mishra has argued that his the ninety day deadline should be equitably told particularly because he he is he applied for relief that he was eligible for aspirant the it repeats an order of the removal order in his case and how to determine the equities in that case was addressed by the board  that is that the contention that two documents carried out to one notice to appear was raised as soon as the alien was sought to be removed is that correct my understanding your honor  that it was not raised before the immigration judge but it was raised during the pendency of his appeal so it was not raised by a bit before the immigration judge and he for relief he was not otherwise eligible for for the i j that the whether the motion to reopen should be decided the factors that should be this and allows a non citizen to stay that that sort of reliance interests should be considered in the equities of whether to reopen that whether to grant a motion to reopen and that is also what is earn not challenging the notice to appear and arguing that she was eligible for cancellation of removal to be considered a for future whereas mr may he was not eligible for original proceedings and then he did become eligible after the procedure in order and then he also did not file a motion to reopen right away because he was reporting regularly to d h s under an order supervision c h s again didn't know that he had this deportation order but permitted him to remain as long as he reported regularly and so that is a factor that the  of physical presence in during the original proceedings and this court held that the notice requirement in the notice to appear was a claim processing rule not a jurisdictional rule whereas and again that case that how to interpret the time rule with a definition of the notice to appear has already been interpreted by the supreme court and pereira will also be taken up by them again in again he was eligible for relief after the removal order and that also goes to how the prejudiced should be the prejudice analysis should also be different and i'm going to reserve my two minutes for rebuttal think you i mean and i mean i'm not going to be speaking to the record i can speak from experience if you would like an explanation of but i would be i think i'd be grateful for an explanation  ok in order supervision in cases like we're looking at people with an executed removal orders closing in on the one million mark and they often prioritize these and just as in one thousand alone the only removed two hundred and sixty five thousand people that had an outstanding removal order it just possible as financial concerns you know allow i also want to point out a very big difference between deferred action and a supervised order of release deferred action is what a lot of the people including what they're not going to be removed until the end if they granted us now when it comes to an order of supervision as the as the regulation clearly indicates that it will be removed as soon it is practical by the government to get there yes they are required to report that they are not viewed in any sort of form of any type of lawful status now i also i also know unfortunately that the government has also proposed just recently as of november th i do believe d h s s proposed start limiting ability of people with order supervision to obtain employment authorization because they have had an issue where they've had difficulties removing people with orders of supervision because it made it difficult for them to comply with providing travel documentation so i apologize for going outside the record i hope that helps explain a little bit and if you would like me to provide additional information i can always provide twenty or say with some of the sites for that information as well never apologize for something that you were have to do and so confined by the record martin but going back to the petitioners concerns they failed to address the board's fully and this court's holding holding as how it applies to his case as just as in china and how this case actually  s i mean the fact that he came into eligibility after his initial removal order is exactly just that is uncertain and not only that he was no longer he was not even in proceedings he could have pursued this relief i think two anything about securing the notice of hearing that referendum i think i think in this case i mean the stop time i mean it would obviously have an impact on eligibility and i don't think that would it would years ten years of loss of physical presence and so at that point in time he was reporting to ice under an order of supervision so d h s s ice knew he was equitable coleman should apply because of that reliance interest and why someone would wait to file a motion to reopen later and in terms of or tiago are again that was a notice issue in just the notice to appear the stop time will was not at issue at all because he had already applied for cancellation of removal so any prejudice analysis is different in our case and also the prejudiced and forfeiture analysis is different in our case because mr may he could not have raised that before the immigration judge he had not yet accrued at that ten years and so the board did say normally you know we don't want to really we don't want to reward people and let them file motions to reopen when they later become eligible for relief they were not for our however if there are certain actions taken by v h s that would it in terms of allowing the non citizen to remain in the us notwithstanding the who are that is eligible for release afterwards and although the board does not want it mr john i'm i'm not sure in what sense he could not have raised the contention that the notice to appear was not valid certainly herrera raised the contention that the notice to appear was not valid that's true that argument was apparent right the argument that two documents can't add up to one notice to appear was apparent as soon as this case is when it that removal proceedings began he couldn't file a request for cancellation of removal until being here for ten years but you are asserting that he could not have contested the validity of the notice to