takes to make a marriage in the philippines elements as they are called requisites under the law in the philippines they are found in article eighty as set forth in matter of augustan in this case our position is their lists are lacking a solomon sation of the marriage there were no cows there was a lack of a marriage license and there was a lack of that signature at the time of the event in and eighty six in the philippines there is the concept of marriage and the weight of ball marriage in this case because of the omissions in the requisite seven marriage that i just named this marriage was  from the beginning we know those things because it was later no no no your honor we know now we know all those things we know those things because the philippine regional trial court made those findings of fact and they said stand she ate that the the wall was not complied with and therefore there was no avoidable marriage that they just voided in two thousand and ten they made a finding that it was void in the beginning because of those omissions have requisites they were not present so it di court in the in the philippine court order from two thousand and ten i i don't have the witness names in front of me but the philippine court order is part of the record from two thousand and ten and that's the in the court in the original trial court in the place where this allegedly occurred it was in mid doro philippines right yes and the the way the judgment together during the intervening what two thousand seven hundred and eleven years yes yes they were and those proceedings in the philippines in two thousand and ten were instituted after immigration proceedings had begun here yes yes they were if you look at the matter of a guest in there at the board of immigration appeals found that testimony alone about a lack of a marriage license was not sufficient so a court order is something that would bring clarity and resolve any insufficiency of evidence and when i looked at the marriage contract and saw it was registered late i had questions and then the answers to those questions resulted in at vise that a lawyer in the philippines should bring an action and have this matter decided because it appears to me in my reading of the philippine law you know you were not married at that time because those requisites were did not happen they weren't defective  omitted and therefore there was never a marriage that took place in one thousand nine hundred and eighty six the judge treated the philippine declaratory order as an enormous she used the word it the marriage was later did and the board of immigration appeals in its decision apparently the gomez family satisfied the objective requirements to have the marriage invalidated and i  record seven hundred and eighteen total pages it's says that a judicial declaration is not needed for considering those facts to be we our position is that the philippine think until there is something that is brought forth to be a wreath and not to give it recognition in our court it should be recognized it seems to me that taking your argument about what the b i a has done and it's published cases in the past the defect here isn't even as to the ultimate merits because it appears to me that the  i here did not examine itself the requirements of philippine law at the time of the purported marriage and if that's a correct reading of what whether the person was married that's basically what they did in i forgot the name of a ronnie augustine and dela cruz both i think involve the b r d itself saying ok you were married in the philippines and the the requirements and you met them or you didn't meet them and they haven't done that here so how can we possibly do that ourselves if they haven't done well you  content of the philippine court order and know our job is to read what the b i a did and determine whether it was reno appropriate or not under under our standards and if they did not do the correct analysis we can't do it for them the supreme court has told us that quite a few times and so they have never passed on the issues that you're talking about what ar requirements and they may say well we agree with what this court did or they may say no no we have other information so why wouldn't we just send it back for them to do that job well i agree with you that marriage and validated so if that is the if that is the proper course to send it back i i certainly would be open to that because i don't believe the immigration it's going to be i really did look at the philippine law you know that's that's exactly my point they just looked at it afterwards and talked about their incentives to deal with six are you referring your honor to the affidavit in connection with registering they aren't state yes well what i can say is that the philippine court order makes inconsistent binding with what is content of that affidavit presley with regard to the lack of a marriage license and the fact that it is in the different year file it's not in the eighty six dollars file so that alone  would i believe that my reading of the law based on the facts as they were told to me which are consistent with the philippine regional trial court order that i don't believe there was ever a marriage good morning ma'am please the court this is dana kemah larry for the attorney general the instant case turns on a single issue whether the agency declined properly to retroactively apply gomez's twenty one and all men are the order for her to reap the benefits of  and ninety four zero slowdown by the question you're recasting the question as one of retroactivity but isn't there an obligation on the part of the determine whether at the time of entry she was a married person and just an independent obligation to figure that out with whatever evidence may be available so if she testified your to all the same things she testified to in the philippines the b r you could make a determination that it is or is not a valid marriage so why is it a retro activity promo because hendrix and actually very recent unpublished case where petitioners counsel made these exact arguments and a panel rejected them which was about four years ago they don't need to look at the underlying facts of the marriage they don't need to look at the actual underlying philippines and at the time of the petitioner entered so on so that the focus has to be at that time and so is there a difference between hendrickson this case because they didn't look independent but our position is no there's no difference there she was married in one thousand nine hundred and four and there's a lot of back and forth and about whether has been married this entire time it's not until the notice of intent to deny that suddenly oh we're not married we're going to go back to the philippines court in a non adversarial proceeding and sever and try to game the immigration system and that's where one hundred wang and the other dispositive case law comes in and tells us that the cia does not have to give retroactive effect to this philippines judgment because it is a blatant attempt system so you are in effect saying that the b i e did in the i g did look to whether she was married at the time i believe in the decision for reconsideration they discuss those underlying facts at length  and i would just like to say that the government counsel is focusing heavily on their behavior the gum as as a couple and their behavior does not necessarily indicate whether or not a legal marriage was entered into and i would request that the judges and the i a e a look at the law in the philippines and then look at the facts and if they need him another hearing for more fact and i i believe in this case there is enough evidence to show that b i did not articulate clearly that they had considered the philippine law applicable to this case