case must be overturned because it was not based on evidence that mr muhammad had a meaningful opportunity to challenge the mr muhammad was found to have committed marriage fraud when he married his us citizen wife miss flores this was based upon a finding by the board that my client and his st wife ms khan must have been living together for at least a seventeen month period during his marriage to miss miss florence now the problem with this finding is that it was bank statement and an energy bill were not just her statements those were kind of conventional business records showing her at that address using that term that well each one of those is not necessarily i would say a conventional business record each one of those were submitted by ms kahn into her immigration file and certainly my client had the right to cross examine not just misconduct the makers of those dot about those documents where she was using his address because her use of his address would have been an out of court statement and understandably that is a business record but those business records though the address for her obtained on those records that was given to these clearly rather a contact with area that he was and he did hear it all but there was no and all of this doesn't really address the travel together it doesn't really address the issue of whether or not this was a marriage to him it's porous ok i think that's very clear on the record but it doesn't address the it's very good test for what constitutes a sham marriage just only addresses how the marriage began so the test is whether the the parties married in good faith attending to establish a life together and all of these subsequent things that occurred doesn't address whether or not mr flores or and mr muhammad intended to establish a life together when all of that's all of those incidents occurred later so i don't know that it actually addresses the evidence that was omitted don't some of the records straddle the period of the beginning of the marriage so conover living together so it's during that same period of time when the ten year old daughter is not listed as having lived with ms kahn but if my client had had the opportunity to cross examine m he would have been able to inquire whether she was living on burnside with her daughter or in oxford as she claimed in her immigration bankruptcy paperwork for him there's also he he he could have but that he didn't have the burden of proof so all of these documents are being submitted by the department and she was and he asked you requested that ms khan come in and she refused but he actually subpoenaed miss flora and she received an order the subpoena which is only an administrative subpoena admittedly but it was the department who had the burden of proof and they submit all of this evidence with declarations by kahn that did not then he was never allowed if she were permitted to ask ms khan about and i think this court's precedent does cover the ability of a person who's about to lose their a lot of permanent resident status to cross examine the maker of a docking of these kinds of documents in these kinds of records go back to two thousand and five which are identifying is the critical period and that's when the  child was born right that's when that your rd child was born yes and he committed flat out perjury in saying that he was not present at the birth and didn't know about that child is not correct he admitted that he  hominid and miss florida as they live together and so i think it was two thousand and nine when their marriage finally fell apart and that he hadn't you hadn't told her about this dalliance and he hadn't needed to miss flo about that so even indeed there is one issue that does cover that period of time but again a lot of the evidence in this record if that were the only thing that  admitted into the record right if that was the only thing then the question is whether there is substantial evidence to find that my client gauged in a sham marriage whether he engaged in marriage fraud and if that were the only piece of evidence given all of the other pieces of evidence in this case that mr muhammad never actually got to that question the maker of about then the evidence was not something on nothing in terms of whether he was in fact doing what he said he did so the comparison is so if you for example let's say we get rid of all of the very very problematic and it bends and of course my client was found to be not credible the comparison of the documentary evidence that mr mohammad it submit it because he said made a lot of removal with an i seventy one because he had divorced from as far as the time that he filed that nd petition the court was addressing it was the petitioners burden to establish that he include the fact that he had had a sexual encounter with his st wife there from the record whether that was right before right after his marriage to nd wives but he claims to have been in love with his nd wife and entered the marriage with her but you know that's a long way from here that's correct your honor what this court has said is that in terms of determining whether the admission of evidence is fundamentally fair this court does consider whether the and so the relevant question here is not so much you know whether these statements fall within the contours of the formal hearsay rule d but whether under this chords case is the petition was court was required to have an opportunity to cross examine bank statements that both of their names appear on so there's not light like a statement from miss florence during that time as florist did cements a declaration others said that she hadn't yet entered into the marriage actually applies only to a hardship waiver and even the immigration judge nobody said that the department has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence in the events that specifically founded mentioned in footnote to that you had admitted the alternative ground for remove abilities remove bodi was established at that point we're talking about to me from it would not be your burden not when it comes to the seven  immigration judge's decision she actually finds that because of the way because there was an interview and because it was a valid marriage it legally valid and it was there was a finding that it was not on