deliver him back he was actually born and elko nevada two so there he was given a nevada birth registration and about their social security card which he later used to be able to obtain an about a driver's license and in fact using his nevada driver's license and or his matto birth registration he was able to travel to and from mexico entering the united states using either of those was not given a fair trial and on the st address improper legal standard about was used by the agency the agency noted that it was not reasonable for the petition that he was a us citizen and whether the claim was knowingly that he knew all that but he wasn't a u s citizen and that he made this claim in order to obtain a benefit knowing that his claim was fal representing yourself to be a citizen of the united states the government's prove that the defendant know that his representation is false we've held that and for that reason i assume the has decided not to charge your client in this case with that crime was because of the mens rea element that they would have to prove that is their own lesser i'll do that give me a moment please is sam there sav can you help us out here this shows i'm here i'm ready to let mr fury know back and if you want to just leave the meeting and then reconnect he was a u s citizen and the immigration judge in the board found that they he did not believe that his that his that he was not credible and based on the evidence that they love to add that there was no possible way he could have believed that so this is basically an adverse credibility case i don't really understand the distinction that the petitioner is trying to make between subjective and and reasonable i don't think st of all i don't think simply a factual one it's whether or not you know whether or not he believed he was a u s citizen and for the purpose of this court's review the issue is does the record evidence compel the conclusion that he did actually believe he was a u s citizen so that's the st thing the nd thing i want to clear up and make very clear to the court is that his his drought a vivid miss ability was not falsely claiming to be a u s citizen his inadmissibility was being in the united states without without admission or parole the false claim to citizenship issue came up when he applied for adjustment of status and that happened his soon as he was in removal proceedings so the argument that he wasn't put on notice until his removal hearing is kind of a red herring because it only came up because he was  applied for adjustment of status and you see is false claim to citizenship precludes his adjustment of status so that's why it wasn't brought up until that he wasn't charged with it admissibility based on a false claim it was not given notice of the false clip of citizenship could be dispositive on his adjustment of status why would that not be citizenship his counsel certainly could have asked the court for a continuance to bring in evidence they could have asked the court for an affidavit from his mother who allegedly told him he was a u s citizen they didn't he could have asked for and seventy five dollars of the record they could have called her as a witness but they didn't so this claim of being blindsided in the due process violation really doesn't have any merit so if i if i could say that's your honest question well i don't know of the dancers judge goes but it doesn't answer my same question the has is i understand there were two prior preliminary hearing these were the false claim to citizenship was not an issue and by the time he reached his final hearing in twenty words he that it had not been raised for two years but still your honor he was still on notice he was i noticed as of as of the earlier hearing and his is attorney certainly could have asked the court for continuance to bring in that evidence it again it was only brought up  is counsel did that it was not going to be an issue in the twenty words he hearing when the new i j him and made the central issue of certainly your honor i see that point but it was not outside of his ability to ask the court for a continuance at that point to say your honor now that this is an issue matter please have time to procedure of a kid in remanded so that with the charge and with that claim in mind he could prepare for the hearing and write a brief on the issue well  i don't think on this record your honor that that he meets the standard of prejudice which is required for a due process hearing because it is the standard for prejudice would show that the outcome may have been different and in this case what we have let me let me if i could describe the evidence the substantial evidence in the record that supports the adverse credibility finding that's before the court today he was st given a fake green card when he was fourteen years old it why would he need a green card if you genuinely thought he was a u s that has asked the st question he was given another fake green card and some other point after that i think she said when he was sixteen he applied for a passport when he was sixteen years old and the page two hundred and forty six thousand two hundred and forty seven of the record it was declined because as he says his paperwork wasn't up to par his u s birth certificate when he was seventeen years old and he used that to get into mexico but he also used his driver's license u s driver's license to get back into the united states  now is it possible that that he thought he had dual citizenship maybe but it's also very possible that he knew he was not a u s citizen and the substantial evidence in this record supports everest credibility finding there is no compelling evidence that he genuinely knew in light of these facts that he was a united states citizen so the standard of review for the court on this issue is whether or not substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility finding secondly with respect to the due process claim the due process claim that was that to the board does not in any way i read the case resemble the one that's being raised now is i understand it the due process claim that was raised to the board and the appeal had to do problem right there with the due process claim we don't think it was adequately exhausted if you look at the record is the end of the day as i started out my argument your honor this boils down to a simple question you know just substantial evidence in the record support the  say that substantial evidence does support the board's filing and we would ask the court to affirm the board's decision and not deny the petition for review and if a court has no further questions i get out of college as for the video hookup testimony that he was born in the us when then of supported his claim well he'd still have to get around having used the mexican birth certificate which in various points in the record he claims is is genuine and claims it's fake and let me if i could point to a point in the record where that is an issue one second here ok two hundred and fifty five dollars of the record he testified that is mexican birth certificate is legitimate that's one to fifty five and then he contradicted himself  later on page two hundred and thirty seven of the record and says that it's fake so we don't know what to believe here your honor and that's that's again the problem with the case that's more substantial evidence you know i guess that doesn't answer a question but let me and if i can answer one more question your honor had suppose his record does far in which we don't believe but that evidence compels the conclusion that he genuinely believed he was a us citizen what that well then is ground of it miss ability for falsely claiming u s citizenship would go away and it would have to go back for a further adjudication of his adjustment of status and he would have some hurdles there because he still i think there's a moral character issue and i'm not sure if it's relevant for adjustment of status or cancellation but there is a moral character issue with respect to him having taken his parents across the border at one point yeah he waived his cancellation of removal because he helped his parents enter the united states illegally