please the court my name is carlos cruz and represent the petitioners served two minutes for rebuttal of your honor's the b a s decision that the petitioners provided false testimony for the purpose of obtaining an immigration benefit is not supported was substantial evidence in the record based on the following three reasons first the male petitioner did not testify at his hearing on general fourth two thousand and seven second the false information provided by the petition as if there in a car interview was motivated by fear and intimidation and lastly the fos information provided in their applications for employment authorization and a subsequent a car application do not constitute testimony as they were not statements made under oath going to first  appear the petitioner was asked his name is address and whether or not he wanted counsel to represent him but nothing else and so therefore this point is clearly an error on the part of the board and that this is an hour to make sure i understand your argument there be form the issue though your honor is not whether there was false information provided at that interview the issue becomes what reason the petitioners had and provide enough os testimony and whether or not that fosse information should amount of testimony under section  light of the circumstances presented by this case the facts of this case go far beyond the scope of those facts contemplated by this court in both of our novices i n s s case and the roman versus i in this case in those cases there was a simple oath taken by the officer in one case at the naturalization interview and the other at the asylum interview where there was a question and answer format where the officer had been trained it's a simple matter and the court found simply that that information amounted to testimony under section one hundred one of six but here the facts are vastly different you have a case where the notary public who perpetuated fraud on these immigrant individuals took the petitioners to the interview himself who the individual who prepared the applications for employment authorization with false information who threatened them that they would be detained on the spot in the port it if they told immigration about their true nationality who completed in the car application who provided them with false birth certificates is the individual who not only dr them to the interview but also served as the interpreter he was present at that interview when the oath was taken and he was the individual interpreter for these petitioners the the the integrity is right here your clients point it initially they were seeking employment authorization and when they saw that employment authorization the record is clear they did it to to work legally and to obtain that benefit now the information provided in that application has nothing to do with whether or not they provided false testimony at the hearing and i understand i don't want to split hairs your honor because the record is clear just scalia in the country's decision found very clearly that one of the one of six does not include statements not made under oath does not involve fabrication under section one or one of six in addition they were acting in a way that clearly represents their fear of being detained on the spot but more than anything they were clearly influenced by the presence of the notary public who was present at that testimony for purpose action one of one of six when we don't have any of the safeguards that are provided to individuals when the oath is take it there is no record of the proceeding there is no video or audio or video of what took place at that interview the court  focus was of the supreme court i mean they held that the false statements did not need to be material to disqualify congress from having the requested good moral character  here and they really sort of crystallize that what mattered is whether the false statements were given with the subjective intent of obtaining immigration natural bent and naturalization benefits and you're saying that we shouldn't focus on anything else other than what they told the asylum officer who are the but even if we just do that didn't what they tell the asylum officer support that they were trying to obtain immigration benefits their intent that that is your other certainly what the v a concluded but what i'm asking the court to do which the board didn't do is to consider the impact that the notary public had on these individuals at the interview when that information was provided to simply ignore the fitna ficken influence but they push technology and you're saying we shouldn't we are not to look at the subsequent statements that they made where they acknowledge that they knew they knew that the notarial was telling them what wasn't correct i mean they're the ones who brought it to the attention of the no tardio that they're not really from el salvador that they're from mexico but then they continued to tell the people at the ins that they were from el salvador and specifically at one point to get in a car a relief which is unique relief granted to to aliens and so i'm just trying to understand your argument in light of what the facts are here are the argument is simple that there was that if the court allows that false information at the interview that that in essence would amount to a due process violation because of the manner in which the interview was conducted you have an individual notary public who is the fraud of these petitioners for years has provided false documents and i understand the court's concern about the false information that was provided by the petitioners during their  preliminary process for work permits and for the car benefits and but the issue is not that false information your honor the issue is whether or not the testimony provided at the interview itself amounts to testimony which preclude a finding  good moral character and although we cannot disregard the information that was provided previously and although it is relevant to the issue of why they lie at that particular interview the circumstances around in this case are vastly different from the leading cases involving when false information at that type of interview constitutes false testimony for the purpose of obtaining an immigration benefit and for those reasons your own i would ask this court to reverse the board's decision thank you you thank  figure out i don't even if it's just for curiosity sake why the government has declined to exercise perspicacity turold discretion in this case on a specific question of prosecutorial discretion with regard to the johnson memos of november two thousand and fourteen or are providing false testimony under oath to an asylum officer for the purpose of gaining relation benefits told him what to say and how that how he you know that he was going to get them relief and then proceed to have them you know give this information is there any other disqualifying information that these folks have other than this one incident in which they relied on the notarial since the hearing process did not get beyond the question of good moral character your  it's also and that's whether or not they could have met the other requirements for cancellation but do you have any idea i mean do you suspect that there is something else that would be disqualifying for them no indication in the record as it stands not to pursue this case to him but if i understand your question why are we bothering to pursue this case given other cases the answer is that from a technical reason the decision was correct and that one of the problems one of the priorities under the johnson memo is that abuse of the visa process which would include attempting to get relief immigration benefits is not something is or is something that is meant to be pursued in relation to other cases so the act of the two petitioners going to that in a car interview and i believe they actually want to separate interviews were going and then being told that they needed to tell the truth and then promising to tell the truth and then flatly lying is a substantial  and that is that however that's that's the basic question in this case would you be able to go back after it without regard to what they would lose well it says to me what would you be able to go back to washington and save them you know i think we've got better things to do and maybe we've now that we've secured our victory we can retire with our well with as an attorney for the united states i'm always able to go back and give my client advice that i consider to be good common sense ok well let's hope and let's hope you're very persuasive let me let me ask you with respect to the merits here where does the record status that mr herrera actually gave false testimony to the asylum officer because it's not entirely clear to me there are admissions certainly that were included on the appeal before the board indicating that they that the two applicants testified falsely they went in for the purpose of going to the car but is there any place for or under oath admitted in front of the immigration judge your honor i can point to that in the record and doesn't that affect your position here to the problem is your honor is that the board  was presented with a stipulation by the petitioners that the facts with the exception of the motivation as stated in the let me rephrase that the immigration judge made findings the petitioner stipulated to those findings including that the both petitions are given false testimony the only thing they contested was the motivation for that testimony so the board hasn't reached that question it was not presented so it hasn't been exhausted the other issue over for me was figuring out if the board was correct that mr herman minute to perjuring himself in front of the immigration judge i think  thousand two thousand and seven because i don't think he actually did that i think that the best that you can find here in the record is that his counsel somewhere in the record where the board was correct when it said that he perjured himself because that's a that's a difference that is a substantial charge and i don't think the board was correct in that regard mr herrera sat silently while his counsel made an accurate statement i'm assuming i have no idea what his counsel knew but i'm assuming the counsel didn't make that statement on purpose but if the board was in correct on that what effect does that have on yours that position the statement that is the genesis of the charge that creates the lack of good moral mediation to us i don't know whether you're familiar with that but we do and sometimes it's successful and sometimes it isn't do you think that you are prohibited by case dozens of reasons to go to mediation and the united states is always willing to talk your honor thank as i said before i believe the record stands that there is stange leavens to support the board's conclusion that the petitioners made false statements under oath for the purpose of obtaining immigration benefits consequently the if there is no other disqualified information in this case absent the finding of the board in the immigration judge there is no criminal record in this case there is evidence in the record that the petitioner for homeowners that been here for twenty two years and would certainly welcome the opportunity seek discretion  before the service and addition there was only one interview in this case where there was possibly false testimony provided by the petitioners and your honor is absolutely correct when you say that there's absolutely nothing in the record with which with regards to the male petitioner being asked about why they provided false information at that interview the record is completely silent on that and with regards to the female petitioner she was only asked twice about why they provided false information the first by counsel and she replies because we were afraid of being deported and the second by the immigration judge where they simply again stated the man was threatening them those are the only two questions in the entire record with regards to why in this case these petitions provided false information to the  and it was really you know excellent experience to see you conduct yourself in that manner thank you thank you thank you