brother in into the united states and we believe that the record shows clearly that the government's reliance on highly prejudicial reliance on highly prejudicial shears the evidence  makes this case highly unconvincing the government did not prove its proved its case by clear and convincing evidence that my client smuggled her brother into the united states they relied on the testimony on statements from her brother who was himself subject to prosecution for illegal reentry and for also having an altered green card and in order to prove their case the immigration judge look at this in terms of hearsay declarations against penal interest your honor it would mean some invasion of reliability your honor in this case this court has already found that to be  case the statements from her brother was relied extensively by the immigration judge in coming to this conclusion you know exactly what i was trying to get at is why are those statements unreliable they're unreliable your honor number one respondent did not get the opportunity to cross examine her brother and to cross examine the evidence that was presented by the government and this court has held that an alien has an opportunity and he has a right to an full and fair hearing where he can cross examine the witnesses what evidence presented and reasonably respondent of x to the petitioner did not get that the one glaring difference between this and the case you cite is this is the this is the brother and one might think as a matter of common sense that a brother would be available to the sister your honor but in this case the burden was on the government the government introduced that statements they did not use as a matter of law it's a irrelevant how close the two are i that one where the other did she make a did she make a record that there was no way i could contact my brother no your honor she did not but in immigration court your honor the immigration judge has an affirmative obligation this court has held that immigration judge has the obligation to develop the record fully does it make a difference because she herself admits making two statements your honor codes or those statements are highly unreliable because she admitted and which she stated at the hearing didn't know about the other two people and she made quite a fine distinction in her mentioned initially your honor if you look at the record it's very vague and unclear first of all when she made that statement  we have that the immigration judge made a credibility finding based on a whole series of events with respect to your client and even if we were to discount some of the basis for credibility if there is even one legitimate basis for the credibility finding wouldn't that at least leave in place the finding of lack of credibility with your client  honor under the substantial evidence test for credibility findings the immigration judges credibility finding have to be based on specific unquestioned reasons it is i read just read three pages of your honor in the midst of the coincidences livability the fact that she was discerning in her difference between her brother and the other people in the eye jury went through all of these two very very clear detail here are immigration judges finding that that she did she made these statements if she was tired you know you know she should have known that by admitting she would be detained longer that is purely speculation and immigration judges finding that if her brother if she hadn't spoken to her brother in so many years that she would give him a ride back into the united states all these issues are purely speculative and yet that's where you could say that about every credibility finding and i appreciate your argument on that but it seems to me there's got to be some place where the i j a gets to exercise common sense and it's not really a total serendipity and you know coincidence beyond belief seems to me to be commonsense and  it's the difficulty for us and for you to convince us of where to draw that line because if we were to take your argument in its most pure form you could never make a credibility finding because you would say i'm looking at him he's looking nervous w you're you're conjecturing that that means he's not telling the truth right right so where do we draw the line here because they let the judge is judge dredd said went down and made four different credibility kleiner based on the totality of circumstances i believe that there are four reasons why this court fight should find in my client's favor the first reason is that if if the statements from her brother the hearsay statements are not admitted the only way the government can can convince  court that my client had smuggled her brother would be based on the other two thirteen which is this court and esplanades versus ins found to be highly unreliable in many cases and then the other thing is based don't believe that the government can meet the burden based on that one witness why not because even her own testimony is unreliable because she admitted that she shredded all the notes that she had made during her interrogation of the admitted making those statements but in light of that let me ask you this if i if we agree with you about the brother situation and hearsay and if we deem it to be inadmissible hearsay because of the circumstances evidence yes your honor maybe they were impression that they knew it was coming down the road and they realized they shouldn't count the brothers testimony in effect because they didn't your honor  been in they're finding they said that they agreed with the immigration judge just finding that my client was removable so in in essence they agree they agreed with all the evidence that the immigration immigration judge had to look into consider take into consideration the the amount of time she was interrogated her educational level and whether she understood the questions and her reasonable explanation that she was tired or husband has has a heart condition  immigration judge has to say our man on the record in order to sustain our lack of credibility i mean no your honor but he has to at least in giving the decision in making the decision take into consideration in his decision he cites her brother's testimony at least five times she said why she should have called her brother in mexico she should have you know if my and he said well if somebody had made a statement like this against me i would have gone and asked him why he made those statements against me and he completely violated due process because by placing the entire burden on my client to refute evidence that the government is presenting is presenting against my client people with false papers the next day they were put into secondary inspection first of all we had she denied being sent to secondary inspection she still denies in her brief to this court that she was referred she just said her husband took a wrong turn that doesn't happen about that why would she lie about anything but the fact is she lives it's on the record there's a referral document in the record next she has two statements on videotape which she signed and said it was not und to it doesn't make sense that her brother who she hasn't seen in twelve years would fly and from michelle i can fly take a flight made her into it just happen surely enter into you want on that day and then just say oh you want to take me back and we don't even have to get to how absurd that is and how not credible and how impossible we have the facts of the record her testimony i knew he had that papers that's the end of the case hearings were conducted in didn't bring her son who was over twenty one to testify you know we didn't know it was just coincidence b arrangements were awake made with her husband so were some like one of the witnesses said we agreed to pay two two hundred dollars she said she never legitimate misunderstanding of when you're in detention and what often it's not right but as opposed to oh absolutely however you can't make a due process constitutional claim and it's to prevail on it when it's just based on a misunderstanding your honor i disagree with the government that it had a fertile slip was introduced in court in fact on the day of the hearing the government did not have any evidence that that's the case well that is a primary inspecting officer had referred the case to the my client's attorney asked her if she was referred by a primary officer doing inspecting to a secondary officer she said she was not and when my my when the her attorney asked the officer she said she doesn't remember it and it was only at the end of the hearing that the government counsel said that well we didn't think it was important and michael and my client's attorney still never saw it but he agreed that ok and if the government is admitting that it was a number two  and that was before there were the court that there was a referrals let's just say even if there was was there wasn't there yes your honor yes please don't tell us there was a yes but it was introduced after the hearing is relevant and your honor and the second year your honor she had she claimed that my client had admitted to her prior to the videotape testimony that she had taken you know that she had admitted to smuggling her brother and i think her mickey you have the actual testimony record  no your honor it's not because on she took those statements and she took those statements and her brother statement that she also took that she allegedly destroyed the notes in coming to the conclusion that my client's and that in that to further interrogation so i believe that that was highly prejudicial to my client and lastly your honor i will say that the supreme court has held and and this court has also held that banishing a longtime resident of this country is a very serious thing and the court has to look at all the evidence in its entirety before it comes to such a severe penalty and we believe that my client is entitled to have this case reheard excluding her brother's testimony which was so