on to the issue of due process i think one thing that's very important in this case is the timing in which mr al about actually got to refute some of the evidence and also the focus of u s c s that kind of zoned in on specific stuff and didn't look at the broad picture one of the things that needs to be kept in mind regarding the evidence in this case is that when the original denial was issued by u s c i s in violation of their own procedures and regulations firmly solidified by the way they refused to issue a notice  intent to do not i more over if you look at the original denial decision in this court record from two thousand the language that's normally on there that says you have a right to appeal this decision was not on the two thousand decision and that's important because they were at the time so that decision comes they think it's denied they obviously have marriage issues so when the when the u s c i ask the b i say hey you didn't submit a lot of evidence we have to take into account that the evidence the what what the issue was that immigration was coming after but i don't think that thirteen years later when he's now married to a u s citizen with five u s citizen children he had any idea the girlfriend that he was living with at the time that he paid the other woman and he offered her money but she wouldn't take it once again there's a lot of conflicting testimony the girlfriend's testimony is completely not credible because in one  we have two sworn statements right one one of which cannot be true so she either lied the first time when she was interviewed by immigration investigators or she lied when she submitted the declaration twelve years later right which that's correct so i got but but even so if you look at the girlfriend's testimony back that the investigator took there's conflicting testimony there on one hand she says look he offered me money to marry him on the other hand she says adequate time in order to meet the charge and i'm trying to figure out why thirteen years from now i wasn't saying that they didn't have adequate time when i was saying was the available amount of evidence in this case for him to put on a meaningful defense is limited and  specially if he has to do that on paper which is why becomes very important in this case because his ability to be able to examine and cross examine witnesses in this case becomes more important the further we get away from the incident and the further the less paper evidence we have so what additional facts would be an adversary proceeding when we have the original statements the sworn declaration obtained by the immigration investigator and the sworn recantation obtain your address what additional evidence would you hope to do set that here so i think it would change the result i think that there needs to be some questions surrounding how she was questioned by the government are you basically talking about the ability to cross examine yes that is it i think there is a lot of evidence that we could get from these two witnesses some of the issues that were actually raised in the decision by us ok you have potential questions are you saying as a matter of law as a matter of due process that your client was entitled to cross examine these witnesses without saying this is what we anticipate they would say and that's my question i want to know what you know what they're going to say because they've got their solutions they've come in late they're going to they're going to they're going to stick by the second statement if i'm looking at what marty was examination i'm the government i want cross examination of these people maybe not i mean think i need a lawyer because i'm potentially at risk for a prosecution for perjury here and anything that i say now in this hearing may well render me liable for prosecution for perjury or for submitting false statements to the government and therefore i'm not going to answer any questions well i'm going to get an opportunity i don't isolate them i don't know that that has any bearing on his right to due process and his right to be able to have that with hearing deprive your  opportunity to propound the questions that you wish to propound and you still haven't told me what answers you expect to receive one of those questions are posed so there were several answers assumptions that were made by yes when they when they deploy when they briefly mentioned her recantation they said well she didn't say that she didn't explain why she did this she didn't explain that she didn't explain this there was a limited amount of information that she would give to my investigator and i will note that it was signed under penalty of perjury law and it was notarized but as a i mean she has no obligation whatsoever to recant her testimony none of these parties have you seen each other for years you're just you're missing my point my point is that the witness is now in jeopardy of criminal prosecution no matter what she says if she admits to the statements that she made originally to the immigration inspector then she lied in the later declaration that she swore to recant thing those statements if she sticks by her statements recant thing she has no admitted that she lied under oath in the prior going to result in the production of evidence that will make a difference in this case that will show that the relief that you originally saw it should have been and if you have no idea what the witness is going to say if that witness will say anything at all then how can you show and entitlement to a due process hearing when you well i think for so i can't say what the witnesses are going to say i'm going to presume that they seem pretty remorseful to my investigator and recantation declaration which i think is really important in this case and it does raise some highlights why two independent women who haven't seen these parties in years comes forward and says hey what we did was wrong that really you are getting back to the same argument which is you believe we have statements you believe that you need to cross examine those statements and perhaps even if they are lying under oath and i agree with judge tom and that's that's a real issue then you want to bring out the explanation but i i believe that there is a ninth circuit authority that says that you are not entitled to cross examine and then once you're going to authority that i'm familiar with this as chain  orcus well in ching the ninth circuit found that she wasn't titled to cross examine a particularly and they went through that matthews test and balancing the factors in that case i believe she was and i know it's on a case by case basis and  in cruelly says i so i understand that opinion there is no due process right to cross examine it says that it's on the only two cases it's a case by case basis and so i would like to look i want to analyze the factors in this case to discuss things like for example and i'm have one minute left but i wanted to test the idea of the imminent deportation because i think that that's really important especially given today's political climate and the fact that he's of arab descent that he's not no but to be fair and honest given the administration in today's political climate and the president specific statements against arabs and the  or the mccarthy are going after arabs but the point is is given that isis stepped up their enforcement this has completely in the government even said if there's some imminent danger and i think given this political climate there is an imitator i'm going to reserve of your honor's the question presented by this case is whether due process requires u s c s to drop formal trial like procedures the right to cross examine witnesses in an informal education of a visa petition in circumstances that are very different than what was presented to this court in the chain case and those differences in circumstances are important because under matthew's the supreme court said that procedural protections depend on circumstances and so in the chain case this court acknowledged that particularly an administrative proceedings were due process generally does not require formal trial like procedures generally does not require the right to cross examine witnesses that this is should be done on a case by case basis and so when you compare the underlying circumstances and factors in the chain case in this case they're both cases where a visa was denied on the basis of evidence of prior marriage fraud but that's essentially where the circumstances the similarities in the circumstances and and so it's the second matthews factor here the risk of erroneous deprivation in the probable value of additional procedures that's decisive here excuse me so in the ching case the court was concerned with u relying solely on a statement from an ex pat yes it was taken years after the marriage had deteriorated and was in another relationship this was the only evidence of marriage fraud in that case and this court thought that there was a high risk of deprivation erroneous deprivation when that's the only evidence of marriage fraud here the evidence of marriage fraud is far more substantial first the statement from the ex about this was taken at the time of the u s c i s interview so mr alvarez former spouse father these a petition for him u s c s brought them and separated them ask them questions and they can give consistent answers about basic facts about the marriage they've been married for one year and nine months at this point they can give consistent answers about where they'd lived during that time at this maple address saying he was actually living with another woman ms batalha rest on this evidence alone they tracked down his patella they got a sworn statement from her she gave them a story that was remarkably similar to the story that miss maria gave them land when she was confronted with the evidence of marriage fraud both these women said that he had approached them offered to pay them between three and five thousand dollars to marry him solely to get an immigration benefit mr you also said that he had before he asked her to do this for him he had asked her sister to do this and she declined that in order to figure out what about that marriage back in the middle east produces the torn photographs right and there's some evidence in the record this wasn't the central issue that was relied evidence here is much more substantial the evidence they submitted the two parties the parties here and the party inching samit in response is also quite different so one of the procedural rights they get in  is notice of the adverse evidence an opportunity to respond what's been called the hallmarks of due process so if u s c s identifies evidence of marriage fraud they issue what's called a notice of intent to deny that lays out the evidence and before making a decision gives them an opportunity to submit other evidence to show this is a bona fide marriage or to explain the adverse evidence in chain this court found the evidence it was made in response to be overwhelming substantial compelling on robotic miss ching submitted a twenty one paragraph statement it laid out in excruciating detail the intimate details of their life she crop aerated that with leases utility bills photos photos from the wedding here mr elevators never responded with a statement of  he's never explained the adversary and he's never submitted this type of evidence photos from the wedding at least is evidence that shows that the marriage was intended to be a genuine marriage at the time it was entered and so the risk of erroneous deprivation that this court was worried about inching simply isn't present here in addition the additional value of additional procedures isn't present here either because in the chain case the court said we have these two statements this is the only evidence we have on one side the expresso statement and we have to weigh that against the statement the beneficiary mr chang her same has been corroborated by all this evidence if you're going to find the same of the ex to be dispositive well that's a situation which cross examination on this short six line on detailed statement could be helpful here in response to the news of intent and i mr al a bad had the opportunity with evidence and he tracked down these witnesses he tracked down this battalion in this mario and got statements from them yes consider those explained why they were insufficient but essentially he's had an opportunity to submit evidence from those witnesses so would probably the additional procedures he's asking for here is an opportunity to cross examine his own witnesses and so both the risk of erroneous deprivation in the problem of additional procedures don't weigh in favor of finding a due process right to cross examine witnesses here i also did so on the first matthews factor in the third matthews factor both of those weighed in favor of cross examination the chin case both of those weigh in the opposite direction here again inching the court was concerned that getting approval of this visa was the only way to get out of removal proceedings and avoid a minute removal very different situation here doesn't happen in a situation before an agency that's used to holding evidentiary hearing and so to extend the the fiscal and ministry of burden of having an evidentiary hearing centrally a full trial on every aspect of fraud the agency identifies in a visitation to almost all cases so would grind the agency to a halt and they would be able to conduct their business of approving genuine visas because they'd be spending all their time having to prove it such a high level fraud adverse evidence that is read that right to apply because of the seriousness of this marriage fraud bar to apply in cases of marriage fraud so in all cases they get an opportunity to have notice that evidence an opportunity to respond and so given the w finding that that first marriage was bona fide said multiple opportunities to submit additional evidence showing it was bona fide an opportunity in the first piece education in this current visit due to cation although they had denied that the earlier court's decision and deny both the a p a and it you know i know for the question for you but you want to three minutes which are you way down when we put two minutes on the clock so one of the things that i think is very important is that u s c s focused on two questions one the missing address and one the trip there were several dozen questions that were asked including such private matters as how many times a month the couple were intimate with each other what the house looked like they both to the same house their jobs the time they left for work who got out of bed first and not once in this decision do you see the government comment on those they focused specifically on it just and by the way it was left out by him and since the police report is there we know he was at the dress address so that was probably inadvertent well why would she say that she lived there and not him i mean if you're claiming she never lived there it was her that said that they had lived there you go this isn't this a case where where he was actually living with the girlfriend when he married now see that's not accurate and if you look at the two thousand police report it says that the girlfriend broke in his house and stalled items it did not say that she lived there the only evidence supposedly and then goes to show how angry she was sold his items or she removed items that belonged to her she stole his items was it was her it was his report it turns out as we do the investigation there's never any serious pursuing of allegation of theft and i believe after that there was some issue whether they were i mean they it appears that this was a to modulus relationship they went back and forth i think he was it i mean no one's going to say this is the husband of the year i mean he was definitely apparently both back and forth between both of these women but but that does not go but you know the intent it was actually the american girlfriend when he married no he wasn't and so that's not accurate information or yeah he was no object ok ok the other thing is that i want to say is that he did submit family statements he not only submitted family statements but he submitted a statement from her very good friend which outlined things that they did together and that just because he didn't submit a statement like chen the declarations they completely discounted were a sterile as the chain duck aeration and i and i'm out of time but thank you