resulting from the failure to give them different paths there with respect to him are indeed the witnesses testified that there would be further investigation but their testimony stopped and their government did not present any evidence of what would have been discovered and in fact the government witnesses testified that there were many members of m r n d t who were not involved in the genocide in mind he was a political party a separate path would be whether or not she was involved with  militia group and that was something that was simply disputed and denied at trial and there are witnesses for the offense or testified that they never saw her wearing any military clothing that she remained in the hotel through even though there was contrary evidence at trial government more than likely would have at least dug up the ones who testified on behalf of the government and that alone would have been sufficient to not her admission but i respectfully disagree without your honor for it and for the following reason number one her mission to citizenship she became a naturalized citizen in two thousand and three the government did  back in two thousand and three and  if they had been put on notice they would have explored and i think you may be asking the government to state the impossible the what why is there reason to think if they found it later they would not have found it in two thousand before two thousand finding the jury finding was that at least one of the accusations in the indictment for truth they could have found that could be the basis for the jury's decision and it also could have been as we think most likely that that she was falsely stated that she was not associated with m r and b if that was the basis of the jury's decision which we don't know because there was no special verdict form in spite of the trial judge t significant i mean whatever the government tried the st time they tried to present their case a jury couldn't make a decision so that is a pretty strong indication that even before seven or eight years before that  officials from the state department and immigration services would have had a hard time as well aren't ye of course i respectfully disagree or arch one point i want to make about evaluating the evidence here is it is that with regard to how the harmless error standard is here if most of the trial court and the government  emphasize the government witnesses with little or no discussion of the defense witnesses and that really sort of extracts the normal sufficiency review and in fact a trial court order followed this course opinion on the original appeal which of course was the normal sufficiency review reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government giving all the credibility determinations you know aberforth the government  and i don't think that that's the proper standard here for the reason for we cited cases in our region to ignore the defense witnesses who are just tried her as someone who was trapped in this hotel a woman who had a small that she was a member of arguments counsel said she was not a member of m r and dig there was no evidence whatsoever that she was a member of and myron day and that i just i was puzzled by your answer judge caraway because conceding that she was a member but there were certainly activities in iraq laser around the hotel and i'm obviously her husband was involved so the example she was associated  the closing the closing arguments in this case made virtually no mention whatsoever of causation it seemed the whole case pivoted on with these witnesses that the government brought in telling the truth or instead were they simply out of fear and desire to appease authoritarian figures sticking to some fictional narrative that seemed to be what the arguments entirely  morning i also want to focus on the prejudice artlessness issue because it does go to you two separate arguments that we made in our brief i don't think there are any serious  there was testimony at trial that the interview would be stopped and further investigation and questioning would have got but this isn't the case his initial answer was and she knows that the government then said you have to answer yes or no and he answered yes and that was on page two hundred and eighty five of the subsequently that he saw her on t military clothing and checking her cards and i think that the significance of that additional testimony is that mr hepburn testified at trial that there was a distinction that they would have asked additional questions about the m r m or r and d but if it if she had disclosed the fact that her husband was the head of a local into are we in the leisure that would have been a red flag get i see where heflin testify if she had said yes she was associated he would have asked a follow up question and we can further follow a question like that and what the association is and then he would critical predictably lead to a discovery of a disqualifying characteristic yeah just just chaotic because i think  recall that she was applying for naturalization in two thousand and three so it was much closer to the events in question that this remark but in further in further answer judge chaotic i think it's u b you can one can easily envision what goes for what that further further investigation went into i think the st question would have been what's unusual is you're asking me to envision that that would have been the question all these witnesses on the stand i don't think any of them the good point of saying and here is what we were that asked i don't i don't remember went on to say we might have gone back and ask some questions we might have just said we were not able to approve this rep refugee processing and moved on to the next person like i came here and here people trying to come here  been talking about the emirate is there any reason why in this case we need to assume that the only thoughts answer the jury found her to give was her per question of whether she was associated with the m r n d in doing the actual prejudice analysis are we entitled to look at all the evidence as a whole in asking whether the jury verdict we foot like a then the same yes i think as we noted but five answers really only three are at issue because the th and th questions require the jury to find that one of the st three was a false answer but that's what we should do it that's what we would do if we had a challenge to the sufficiency of the case and it was given three reasons the other two is insufficient as to one but it was sufficient as to one of the others so we would say if any of the reasons that's enough but we're not doing that analysis here where we're actually get we're doing an actual prejudice argument that's right judge chaotic and that's why we noted in in our brief because the district court said that the jury had to find unanimously find one of those been made once again st few dancers themselves she failed to reveal which would have made her an eligible for citizenship the answer to the st would have follow up one point on that because you pointed out if there wasn't testimony about what those questions were there was testimony in this case from dr longman that the roadblock in front of he his knowledge and all of this investigation in never heard the shalom was married and he never heard the name the interest money and yes he during his research so if the government is relying on him there and you know we would point to that particular  his research as indicating that she was not involved not in numbers as i'm reading the way the government says that she was with respect to other witnesses and just some sort of count of the government's points on the testimony about military clothing  session of the honorable united states court of appeals is now recessed until the next session of the court thought save the united states of america and this honorable court