inspectors and properly processing that child's case as an adult case resulting in the creation of a nine to thirteen based only upon rd party statements without any indication and that lacked credibility the b i case of smuggled unaccompanied minors there is a myriad of regulations arising from that he already in the forest settlement of course there's all the president decisions it's own little world in that way but inspectors should refer smuggled unaccompanied minors to an ice juvenile coordinator or our placement winchell proper care and orderly process being the generally results in the lawyer because the da just did not verify in any way that it actually was the child's mother this could easily have been another member of the smuggling ring that was bringing the child and there is no evidence that they went to talk to the mother to verify that this person is the mother and back in the itu thirteen on page two the evidence of the child's nationality and date of birth does not come from the alleged call to the mother it comes from those smuggler the person who just went in front of a inspector and lied about the child's identity and tried to present an alabama birth certificate to say if this kid is born alabama that's where the da just as evidence of nationality and date of birth comes from from this person and i'm arguing that this person is not reliable and why are they reliable because they just committed fraud and anybody who commits fraud regardless of the venue legal venue that's repeatable showing that this person is not credible they just and seventy seven it just says contact was made by phone it doesn't how do they know it's the mother at the other end of the telephone call it could have easily been another person because the statements by the mother also cast ballots on whether this is really the mother because or yes i've been living in the united states for ten years and i was in mexico six years ago and i last saw  daughter in mexico three years ago so even the timeline that these officers are taking from this person is completely impossible not just unbelievable it's impossible you could last been in mexico six years ago and this is all your child in like why would someone make all these statements against their interests you know just because d h gets called i would think your reaction would be that maybe hang up that i don't know phone number and knew she was here only why didn't they go make contact with her and have her come testify and it seems very strange this to me that they had all this information and didn't bring her into the door and i think that's part of the reason why this case is just so all odd because my entire career doing immigration law i've never seen eye to thirteen absolutely nothing by the subject and that's why we argued before the i j a in the b i a that this court's decision rests on also saying that if there was no speak meant by the subject of the completely traumatised by being processed as an adult and not being processed properly as a child if it helps the court because i know you have hundreds if not thousands of lines of because in my client's case that didn't happen once on a school in charge the way it should have worked in the compliance with all this complex array of child based regulations was not followed and that's what government really had no notice or sense to make reasonable efforts to secure these witnesses think that that excuse the government from its obligation to provide a reasonable basis for cases where a lot of reliance is made on rd party hearsay testimony i would argue that there's some kind of notice or something on the record that that desire no one because i mean as a practical the additional pieces of evidence is the appropriate remedy here as to the other issues of service on a minor and the flores issue i think a lot of the court has cases that were cited stand for the proposition that the government has to make reasonable effort to prepare witnesses for tyshan or has no ability of cross examination and my argument is that the desire to cross examination or the assertion of that right w never raised at any time and at even the proceeding below the site despite myriad filing with the part in myriad appearances before the immigration judge wonders arguing that the specific right off examination has been because no witnesses got called by the government to sustain the credibility and reliability of the thirteen in hernandez case they presented two of the authors of the something a bit more because we don't have the op or the subject of the ip thirteen making these statements and the subject should have the right to cross examine but also the court needs the ability to know that this particular  that's exactly the point your honor the burden is on the government here i don't think there's a situation where the burden is on the government that the should be shifted all rini all of this evidence when the government should look at its own evidence look at the sky to thirteen and say you know what this is a very convincing we should probably buttress the where else what other information do you have and even when the government attempted to present a courier which is a mexican registry document even that document had intensives been seems because there were two