singh was barred from being the beneficiary of a visa petition by eight us sealing fifty four c on the grounds that over thirty years ago he entered into a marriage with a us citizen a doris mcwilliams which was supposedly for the purpose of obtaining of an improperly obtaining immigration benefits you would agree that if that were true you lose absolutely and so doesn't matter when it occurred that's correct it doesn't doesn't have to be the present marriage or anything of its any prior sham marriage would be a disqualifier absolutely what tell us why why the evidence here is not overwhelming that there was a marriage fraud because the board of immigration appeals ruled in manner of of rentals and to see whether those are two names on the lease looks male looks at matters of that sort to see whether there's in dish of whether they're living together or not living together would you call those all inferences absolutely certainly what you're ok so that's where we differ that's seems like direct evidence from which the government can then conclude if a couple is not is not living together then i e mr robinson's father his purported father the inspector didn't even ask the band for identification so they have that testimony they have various other documents that they've looked at no documents your honor there's no documentary evidence at all supporting the finding here well there's documents that contain absence of information and then and your argument is i take it but you have to draw  admitted to have been pained by the marriage direct evidence that the parties were not living together and then that person would have to be marched into the proceeding and testify with live testimony otherwise once drawing an inference from something somebody said to somebody different times that the factors which will constitute direct evidence of that there are normally considered in some marital fraud are evidence that one of the parties was was paid evidence of the parties were not living together to correct evidence that the parties are not living together with that for example if the if the in the exam if the inspector in this case had gone to the place where the parties claim to live together and not found evidence that  they were of two people residing there the inspector here the only place he went to the only place he went to was the address of or of the of the texas just told us that the lack of evidence is insufficient because that necessarily because if but if an inspector goes and sees no evidence that's enough i would say that yes i would concede that i would concede that if there was a site visit to the marital home and the site visit made it clear that the parties were not living together i would say that the parties admitted to not living together i would say if there was witnesses showing that the parties didn't live together that would be direct evidence but in this case we have none of these the investigation never went to the marital home the investigation went to the home of the prior wife's purported boyfriend who a parent through and spoke with the neighbor who said that the prior wife was in and out of the prior boyfriends residence and this person who claims to be the prior boyfriends the boyfriends husband who says father who says that their they're living together  considers to be a common law marriage of course in the common law relationship of course no definition of what he considers to be a common law relationship at best if the evidence may show that the prior wife was having an affair but to turn the conclusion that the prior wife is having an affair into determination that the beneficiary her husband is is a marital fraud we actually have to engage in numerous inferences first of all we have to infer from the facts that were given to us that she was having an affair second we have to infer that a person who engages in them in a marital affair in an affair during a marriage entered into that marriage in bad faith now that's a very very striking that's a very big inference given the fact that at least forty the ministry of the forty percent of all wives and sixty percent of all husbands engaged in affairs during the relationship of marriage but then on top of that on top of these other inferences we now have to also in that because dora singh the the the us citizen wife here did not enter into the marriage in good faith therefore mr singh did not enter into the good and into the marriage in good faith rather than mr singh being the innocent victim of a cheating wife and as a matter of fact there's been cases that have been this specifically health that the mere fact that one of the parties again is in john entered into the marriage in good faith is not evidence of the other one it's entered into the mar good face so these are all inferences upon which the court must which the c i s engaged in all directly contrary to the holding of the board of immigration peels in matter of tom fox now maybe this court doesn't like matter of talk maybe they think that's a bad decision but this is the controlling case of the board of immigration appeals and this is what the what this court is held by under under chevron furthermore another thing which is really quite erroneous in this case is the fact that the the president the plaintiff didn't fact come up with substantial evidence of the marriage was injured into in good faith you came up with four witnesses who knew the parties at the time and the board rejected in the board fails to rejected their evidence because they said quote we can't consider affidavits from witnesses unless they are in lesser is primary evidence that the marriage was entered in good faith not only is there no evidence whatsoever to support those statements but in fact both the third in the seventh circuit have both helped that uncorroborated statements by one of the parties to a marriage can be sufficient to carry the petitioner carry the burden proof that the marriage was introduced to in good faith and this bore all of the board commented offhand that there was no credible statements from friends the morning your honour's may please the core brand of water and with the u s attorney's office on behalf of the government this court should uphold the board of immigration appeals decision finding that the record contains substantial evidence of fraud  validity of a marriage as well as evidence of an immigration ins fraud investigation which as we heard contains statements from a superintendent of a building that  inconsistent answers to questions that were key in fundamental two to the elements or to demonstrating of the validity of a marriage those inconsistent answers is evidence the lack of  contains the ins fraud investigation is not an inference that is evidence that was compiled by an ins investigator who went out to a site and interviewed witnesses that is all evidence in the record again that they didn't interview the marital  mcwilliams old address that's the address the issue used to live at when when she met dr singh and that according to the the witnesses that were interviewed the superintendent of the building  together the bottom line is the ins investigator who spoke with investigated those claims and spoke with the superintendent a building and an independent neighbor both those accounts come up with the same sim result o there's ample evidence in this record for the court to conclude that the agency properly determine that substantial and probable evidence support the finding of marriage fraud and unless a court is any further questions your honor the statements of the witnesses are far less conclusive them but the government would have you believe the neighbor that was to talk said merely that doris singh was in and out of anthony robinson's apartment what does that mean in and out i mean it could mean any number of things with respect to the brighton beach that wasn't just respect to the finish my question so hold on one second because you may be answering a different question you want to do that  with respect to the brighton beach dress was there any evidence that mr williams there other than the name on the lease yes the statements of four witnesses so the statements of the four witnesses and the name of these and that was it yes again absence of evidence is that you conclude because the parties did not have evidence thirty years after the fact that they had th t is it is an inference an inference is a logical conclusion drawn from facts that was from webster's big dictionary defined in the quoted in adams vs can do morgan and content circuit decision and that's all this case is it's inferences drawn from facts and not very strong ones mr familiar with the classic form of jury instruction that someone walks in here and series of people come in here and they've got umbrellas are wet you can infer that it's raining outside is that is that an improper inference in the context of a review of immigration decision i i i would say that your honor the board of immigration appeals recognizes what a drastic penalty this part of this the this is and therefore was well within its rights in sitting in an extremely high standard of proof which is what it is to establish the matter of top