that this case calls out for a totality of the circumstances standard to be applied because without it it's impossible for the court hearing officer or the court below to determine the bias or implicit bias of the fraud investigator who served as an interpreter as to whether he was actually adversarial in trying to find a particular conclusion and may have influenced the mr also karrie who arguably was not mentally competent at that time without a totality of the circumstances standard it's impossible to bring in evidence of the pattern of conduct that posts them and to show that typical for that post to bring people in keep them waiting for long and uncomfortable periods of time to try to get them to be amenable to saying statements against interest perhaps my next point is that the hearing officer was arbitrary and capricious in not enumerating a standard used to draw his conclusions and accepting meeting her partner's conclusion as to mental status which was tailored to the hearing and discounting the medical report of the doctor in yemen that there are three standards involved such as the private interest the effect of the rd one is the government's interest i should point out that judge kogan imply that there is a terrorist slash security interest in keeping a person such as mr olson cari sponsoring people who may or may not be is his children but there is no yes i have two questions the st one is your client uses his name curry which is the same name if you put in his passport application and then wonder if he putting the match your receipts behind all the arguments if you are making are you saying that that name is the name that he has been using  removed and in that case not be mabel to come back to your country nice raise some due process issues but he was removed his passport was says the private interest effective now mr carney would not leave the united states just to go on vacation it does retain family members over in yemen which is at the time in one thousand and seventy two when his father petitioned to bring him to the united states his name was different then it was when a naturalized or that not he listed on that he listed on as the application union that if you can pronounce the word and it sounds the same regardless of the spelling since it's a translator isn't from the arabic language that's close enough because it's not you know there's no standard translates into people's names from yemen from the arabic language to our language for many many people came to the united states good lord they did that did they and indeed does not the red do not the regulations require that he apply for a cast for in the name in which he's given a debt appears on his nationalisation papers position here mr brown your client could never travel abroad and could never obtain a passport as a u s citizen based upon their current position under the name that's on his certificate of naturalization and the date of birth on a certificate of natural is absolutely correct and to take a step further if you were to pay taxes under the name under certificate naturalization vote on that name under the government's theory in this case he'd be committing some type of fraud right because that's indicated i think was only one sentence but he indicated even if the government had the burden of proof he believed that it could be met here based upon all the things that were in the record including how detailed the statement was by your client fact that he corrected the name of a town in the statement on the issue of dementia that you know he the daughter in law said it only began in two thousand and thirteen and gradually deteriorated he sent two e mails two months after the interview he submitted a declaration two thousand and eighteen if if a person of limited capacity can spy in a name and say that's not how the name should be present any different in the way from a dog recognizing its name that doesn't mean that person would would comprehend everything that was ready said as to the as to the daughter and commenting that she didn't observe anything showing his diminished capacity at that time the fact that d all timers from what i know is a gradual process that accumulates over time is such that  if the daughter in law only had simple conversations with him as to what he'd like the dinner is something he would be able to answer it but when you're dealing with complex legal questions under great stress such as an interview at an embassy that is a trigger that is a different circumstances and certainly the daughter in law wouldn't be competent to know about that we did put in documentation from doctors who did see him in yemen to establish that he was at the beginning stages of is mental incompetence and since there was no totality of the must you can point me to one so you're simply trying to add a new standard within the a p a where the standards are very well established not you there's nothing in the statute there's nothing in the case law well i would say department applied the appropriate legal standards in revoking plaintiff's passport and did not violate the plaintiff to process rights st the district court properly up held the revocation of planets passport  plaintiffs could not overcome the evidence of his own sworn statement to the state department in which he admitted that he provided a false name and a false data birth on his passport application pacifically as the district court explain and admissions that came directly from the plane in the complete absence of contradictory evidence and the light of the deferential standard of review of agency action under the a p a the district court correctly affirmed the state department's decision bianco just pointed out it is a passport application and it's both revocation hearing who has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the state department improperly revoked the passport and must return to the applicant the totality  congress yes i have just one problem that is trying to agree with you that there's plenty of evidence in the record on the basis of which this fellow can be viewed as a scoundrel this name and this date on his naturalisation he was bound to require to undergo rules of natural these ancient to continue using this name so whatever he described it i don't see how the use of this name or this date on his passport application was fraudulent that's a name he had to use protect his passport  for everything else but it seems to me that it is wrong on the face to say that the application for the passport was pro deal and the proper thing is to go  of needing to show his identity pursuant to what's required under the regulations and here here the plaintiffs have not met that bird in his application and during still under the regulations it is still appropriate for the state department's revoke a passport if the the plaintiff has not had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that is on his  identity the burden is on the plaintiff to make that showing to show his identity and here given the evidence in the record given the information in the record the state department correctly looked at everything that was in front of them in front of the hearing officer examined the statement that counsel is not challenge the accuracy of indicating that he's also used this name from his birth certificate of alb if he was born with one name but then he ultimately applied for naturalization with a different name dropper yes it would appear that he didn't tell mike mike why grandfather came to the united states with a name that was altered and he for naturalization with the altered name was like grandfather commit fraud well your honor i think this to travel a not i didn't suspect correct your honor however i think all right point is so we know we know that we know that united states at the time that the apply for naturalization no so so what proof do you have that he defrauded the united states at the time that he apply for naturalization i will get to your i know what you want to tell me about the passport but tell me what proof there was in front of the state department of that he and that he defrauded the united states has just got i just agree with my colleague judge calibrat to the regulations twenty two c f r section fifty one point two five a what is the name that he was required to use in his application for a passport well your hon clear what name based on what although you're talking about it's not clear it's quite clear here what name you are supposed to you he was supposed to use the name that appeared under the actual station was he not well your honor ultimately mr ted is that name was not particular by fraud if that name that identity that naturalization was not prepared by fraud wasn't he entitled to use that name you have not established that when he assumed the identity i just turn it down in the end naturalized that that he somehow confronted people that he lied about it you haven't established that nothing in the but i i frankly think this of law by the district court judge magnesia remanded to the district court judge to recognize that his determination of the burden of persuasion was not pursuant to regulation that did not have been in force he also said that you have a significant interest the there and that really doesn't experience security threats the united states did you did you make a finding as the secretary of state make a finding that there was a security concern about the smuggling of children into the with you about the smuggling aspect but is that because the simple act of smuggling someone in the united states present a security concern maybe it's because they're from yemen that you could somehow make the leap of faith that because they're muslim or arab that somehow they and in preventing the smuggling of any individual united states regardless of whether people just of course the district court said was based on security interest and i'm just i want to know where in the record you articulated that the there was some reason you two questions that i don't go back to this issue obviously a p a review is deferential as you noted but as you also noted agency is bound to follow their own rules and regulations and judge leslie mentioned one c f r but i want to give you something if the name change occurs and one of the ways is by certificate of naturalization issued in the name so by taking the position that was taken here is next directly contrary to both of those provisions where it sit with with these facts and now have to determine whether or not mr ailes akari is entitled to retain a passport when there is false information i find a phone statement and something that again is not being challenged the accuracy of by plaintiff's counsel point is the a p a also arbitrate this requires them to follow their own regulations whatever argument you're making about why they did it i'm just pointing out don't seem to be consistent with the regulations but i don't go in circles on that the other question is on the burden of proof issue that put the burden of proof on the downs or cowley is not was not in effect at the time of the hearing right well your honor this was that precise regulation was not  party but the burden of persuasion is on the person requesting the hearing and it's important also that the regulation to take effect during the course of this long range of litigation in which there were multiple administrative hearings there were you know it was st there was an action the district court was remanded another hearing all the time to plan to progress presented by counsel so we would at least admit that the regulation was in effect at a portion of this proceeding but if assuming that regulation doesn't apply because in applied from the beginning start of the hearing that the default provision should apply why would that be incorrect well your honor even assuming that the default applies and even assuming that the regulation was not in effect just for court