regime a treasure for petitioner interestingly and made please the court your honors the question before this court is quite narrow and the burden on the government here is quite steep this case must be transferred to the district court unless the record conclusively demonstrates that mr finlay is not a us citizen as the supreme court has put it it transfers required here i must the evidence of mistrust in the us citizenship is so inherently incredible as to compel disbelief now that is a very high bar and the government's evidence that mr finley is a jamaican citizen is not the airtight case that it needs in order to avoid a transfer far from it even the jamaican embassy has stated that mr finley is not a jamaican national and the record contains many things that we did and that jamaican embassy gave a very equivocal brief statement that it was it was not identified as a national of jamaica during verification interview conducted by the embassy i'm not sure that it's really a definitive statement it's followed up saying it won't be issuing a travel document at this time it was one embassy was clear with respect to mr fenley status in jamaica but with that said to the extent that there are ambiguities around the document those ambiguities are to be construed in mr finley's favor given the posture that we are in  but as the court has noted there is plenty more in the record that supports mr finley's case for being a u s citizen there are multiple government documents as well as a sworn affidavit from mr finley al what was the basis for mr finn the assertion that his birth or guess maybe that his birth certificate was destroyed in hurricane hugo can you tell does he know which office it would have been kept in the bridge and island and you know that seems really like rampant speculation to me is there any factual basis for that your honor i'm not aware of anything in the record that supports that i mean i do think hurricane hugo it the virgin islands in  as perhaps a hypothesis but there's nothing concrete your honor but the fact that there is no birth certificate from the virgin islands or records in the virgin islands that support mr finley's claim of being born there doesn't and it's not just mr finley's statements the affidavit he submitted in two thousand and eighteen and the statement he gave to the government in two thousand and thirteen there are also government documents such as the pre sentence report prepared by the district of connecticut's probation office which listed his citizenship as being in the united states his daughter's birth certificates from march one thousand nine hundred and five those are at pages four hundred and eighty three thousand four hundred and eighty four of the record those lists his out of the blue identifies it as an alien your honor i'm not sure what exactly happened there but it is outside the record and the government the government merely says with respect to that statement that filing that it would be unconscionable in that circumstance to allow mr finley to now claim he's a u s citizen but outside of that document mr finley consistently claimed that he was a u s citizen he is not a basis by which the executive can expand its jurisdiction right ultimately whether or not mr stanley is a u s citizen here is a jurisdictional fact that goes to the executive authority to whether to is evidence on both sides of the question here the statute is clear in the case law is clear that a transfer is appropriate the supreme court made that clear in the a ghost o case where you had an instance where the petitioner story kept changing including during immigration proceedings and the court said even if there might be doubts about that story's truth any challenge to the petitioners credibility there needed to be made in a district court and that principals thinks the government here where excuse me one minute left thank you thank your honor that that principle i think sinks the government here where their argument is essentially just that mr finley's evidence cannot be trusted to that and i think it's notable here that the  immigration judge in this case who had less evidence before him of mr finn these u s citizenship that is in the record now nonetheless still held that the government had fallen short of its steep burden to prove m and so i think that all but compels the conclusion that a reasonable fact finder could find in mr finley's favor and that in turn requires this court to transfer the case for further proceedings i must the court has any further questions at this time i'll r love to make all sorts of facts or findings all the time that i think what we're good at and that's why these cases go to give to people who are accustomed to fact finders who can say him as a citizen and at other times not all that stuff is here why isn't that technically but kind of thing that this d law says goes to the district court and questions show there are ample questions of fact around each of those pieces of evidence maybe a fact finder could properly hold for the government on some of those questions but at this stage before this court that's not appropriate those doubts all have to be construed and mr finley's favor which further underscores the need for a transfer my friend counsel either side said that outside of the couple of statements finlay has made we haven't presented anything else to support his us citizenship that's just not right if you look at the record it's got multiple pieces of evidence supporting mr family's claim to having been born in the virgin islands as islands that the page five hundred and thirty three of the record and mr finley's twenty authors birth certificates at forty three in eighty four of the record also list his birthplace as the virgin islands so there's plenty beyond just the statements that mr finley has made although the statements that he's made would be enough on their own to justify a transfer in light of what even counselor said is is a forgiving standard one last point just calibrate he made a comment about how mr finley perhaps made a representation about his illian age in order to get a lower sentence just to make sure that the the records clear on this mr phineas criminal sentence was reduced twice the st time finley's appointed counsel then filed a motion to reduce his sentence three years later after the sentencing guidelines changed again and that motion did include sentence that that the court and opposing counsel raised about remove ability sentencing guidelines and the district judges subsequent reduction of mr certainly sentence was again based on the change in the guidelines there was no suggestion that his sentence was reduced that nd time because of remove ability  so this isn't a situation where mr finley told a certain story to a court in order to get some benefit and got it far from it most important any your time is expired i think we will close