voluntary departure and there was no bad credibility finding so we presume that they were credible now the board of immigration appeals decides they're not and gives a lot of weight to lose that gomez now if you will look at the administrative records number page five zero nine you will see that ramon rodriquez prepare their i five eighty nine and then if you look at the ministry of record page five or one you will see that ramon rodriquez filed the cancellation application for that gomez there was a relationship to tell them to get a psychological report that's her word against his there's she failed to have the legal permanent resident parents testify or have a declaration and she was not familiar with the documentation in the file she was not familiar with the documentation in the file because ramon rodriquez provided it and it shows on administrative records that she did not know that they came in on one visa for the whole family and it was on one passport and if you look at administrate of records page two eighty three you can see that she's not familiar with these that also she was not familiar with salvatore progress he had three operations in mexico she thought those three operations were in the united states and she said why didn't you get the mac the operations in mexico and he said what and she said where did you get the operations and he says in mexico that's on page two eighty three sheets of it the wrong documents right so she should have the parents testify because they had two u s citizen parents and two legal permanent resident parents and that brings up the hardship more greatly and generally the other woman was supporting her helping to support cancer treatment in iraq oh that's correct and she was sending money and the mother was here and she was helping support the mother so it leaves declarations about her parents hardship which should have been submitted the application didn't identify the  parents as a basis for hardship is that correct you know and that was the application was submitted by ramon rodriguez and liz that gomez never looked at it at the hearing they didn't nobody suggested that the parents were the basis for that that's correct clients were chinese the truth about what happened or could i just resolve it now that that seems to me to be the question to me case law on that question to process no i don't have the case on that particular question if they're disputing with who to believe that's what you're saying but that's the only question is not because if you believe her they lose don't think i think the record shows that she wasn't prepared and she provided ok sorry i wasn't prepared but she says it's because they didn't give her the information they had she asked through review the board of their determination of fact they are the board of immigration appeals that's making credibility finding they're deciding that our client my clients are don't think so i don't think they have the right to make a credibility finding when the lower when the immigration judge found them credible and they are seen as spontaneous just deciding that it's not credible well on a motion to i think we have some case law on a motion t right unless it's inherently unbelievable and i guess that's where the problem with the with the details letter comes in because one could conceivably look at that letter and say well her  so in other words they were credible and no no but that's combination that was made by the immigration judge with with regard to something entirely different that's true but this one you factual decision and now we have to determine whether that was correct or not and do we give any deference to what they found and you say no right i think it should be read now didn't so it can be discussed in front an immigration judge right it warrants for every man ok but a letter written by this gomez the former lawyer that does directly contradict petitioners essential claims which was that ms gomez never told them that they needed to go out and get their elder son examined by a counselor a psychologist or a of thing does come up in for example your honor in a sense your case is the court's case law in that area has gradually moved away from requiring sworn statements from aliens claiming that they weren't told by their form that they have to be at the hearing at a particular time the court has said in the century we will look at what the alien has provided and if it's reasonably credible will think that's enough to overcome the presumption that for example the notice of hearing was mailed properly if the alien says well i never got it you know i are we believe miss gomez and we disbelieve the petition that they had to be doing that well they have to they have to decide whether reopening is warranted right and nor is really the only way they could have done that and this it do you have reopening if it was just the petitioners declaration so therefore they have to be making a fact finding as between the two of them as to who was telling the truth and i have to be doing that well i get your honors questioning and you will if somebody asked i think it was you they found facts rather then and why should you do that it seems to me that you are reopening their record and finding facts that's what they did if but if the reopening if the if there was a hearing before the in person and with an opportunity to cross examine which i don't i'm paper yes and where i understand i think you said earlier that if the board were to consider and there voice no additional evidence other than the test morning of the petitioners both to boys and that's the reason why the immigration judge said you know there's no really open meaning grant they were in the removal but reopened meaning have a hearing where they could introduce new evidence that's correct that's correct now what we're talking about here is a sort of intermediate reopening where there would be a sort of special master fact finding limited to who is telling the truth about what this gomez told the petitioner did she tell them to go out and get that trial examined by a psychologist and do it as soon as possible or did she not what makes that fact finding it would be well i'm not under the scenario the judge birds on is interested in it would be an immigration judge now sort of have to be referred back to the immigration  various points before the hearing went forward i think is on pages thirty five and thirty six or thirty six and thirty seven of the record where she has notes and they're so given at the time that you have her conferences with the petitioners saying you need to go out and get this child examined and then the last one the february two thousand and three note says meeting very difficult they still have not gotten child examined that gives her a letter quite a bit more believability she's given you contemporaneous records well i think short cut and the question is is it a legitimate story i mean i think that's you know i think that's a fair statement you want to was this a legitimate way for the board to in effect look at the record before it and say reopening warranted or reopening not and i think that the board did honor their declaration came first i'm sorry their declaration came first it was part of it was one of the exhibits attached to the motion to reopen subsequently the petitioners made a supplemental filing while the motion to reopen the still pending before the board and they with the opportunity to have live testimony and may actually cross examine witnesses and certainly in an ordinary case and we'll get back to the i'll get back to the high pop to the hypothetical situation where let's go as his lawyer was not before the board and the board did grant reopening then yes there be a further hearing before the immigration probably showed up and it's come as chris said exactly what her letter said well that's a different kind of reopening where i'm thought you were talking about the ordinary course of reopening this kind of reopening i've never heard of this kind of case where a i suppose petitioner should be kind of kind of bad that i don't think i don't think they look bored would be legally required to say that because the petition is did the right thing here we're not going to look at that information yeah i think the court attention thank you