avenue for decision in a case involving the naturalisation case was decided by the district court in san diego with the judge concluding that there are no no triable issues of fact in dispute and we disagree vehemently with the judge's decision mr castro why it is applied for naturalization in february of the issues in dispute are whether mr castro quietus materially and knowingly with held information about any criminal arrest or criminal record in the state of mind and that is what this case comes down to naturalization the the court cases tell us that naturalization brings a very heightened standard as to what we're looking at is a willful right yes though we're looking at deliberate and voluntary you're also looking at knowingly well i guess no specific intent necessary but a knowledge of faults of the is enough that may well that's right correct i would agree ok so what we're really about then is is the party state of mind such that they would have knowledge of the falsity and i agree in the end and so at this point why didn't we have an expert well that the court would not allow us to go forward to to the trial here on the well why didn't we have i didn't i i have been in your spot many times i go get an expert i get a declaration who comes in and says i can suggest that this state of mine is not because she couldn't make that determination what what i mean i looked all over to try to find how one can testify to their own state of mind i could find no case that suggests one can so there's no reason for the judge to believe what she testifies i did find our case for his only versus the united states our case in one nine hundred fifty nine which says as a general rule a witness may not testify to their own medical condition past or present and there for no reason to reduce receive testimony that she has about what she's got to think about because it can't be admitted it can't be believed nobody can talk about their own state of mind so it would have been easy to file such a declaration and was fired the  story of sexual abuse and drug use and so on the evidence that she withheld was that she had spent some two hundred twenty between two hundred twenty nine hundred ninety days in jail that seems very different in quality  from saying that she was abused by her mother's boyfriend or she was abused by an uncle or a neighbor those things might be repressed but it's hard to lose all year of your life that was spent in jail so that's that was the material withholding it's not the withholding of information about how she was abused sexually but the sheet that she had gone to jail and been around been arrested in fresno so i what evidence have you got and why didn't somebody come forward some dr somebody and say wow i heard her her she was so traumatized as a youth because of the sexual abuse that she can't remember anything the court is correct in pointing these matters but the court must also realize that this is a person that spent five years in federal prison undergoing i believe five hundred hours five hundred hours of drug treatment and analysis and that is where she realized and came to understand what she had done in the past right but most of the most of the affidavit is devoted to saying here are the recovered memories that i have of being sexually abused nobody was asking her to tell the immigration officials about sexual abuse the question related to whether you have been arrested and she spent almost a year of her young life in a state facility because of a crime that she had committed and she doesn't answer the question accurately she doesn't remember that she spent a year of her life in jail how do you get around that counsel you have no evidence whatsoever from from anybody else to say yeah once going to suppress a year in jail the evidence that we have that all this came to light only would respond in miscavige to hardasses deposition that the government conducted in twenty thirteen when the government presented documentary evidence that she had been arrested that there had been a case that had been calendared in the court but she had no recollection of that arrest until that  but that's not the time for which she spends almost a year of her life in jail that's not the crime for which she spends almost a year of her life in jail that's correct she had an obligation to disclose to the officer that she had spent been arrested and it spent nearly a year of her life in jail she didn't do that that's because your honor she didn't realize that she didn't realize what that she had spent a year in jail that's correct and what evidence do we have for that we have to this point in time your honor we have only her six page sworn declaration but we is the same as remembering when you can live she can remember all the places that she lived except for the year she spent in jail for she could remember that she had been in jail that would be among the addresses of which she had lived well your honor the the naturalization application would have been dated february of ninety six you only have to provide residence to go back five years that's outside the the time in which she was held in custody or incarcerated the form itself only asked for five years right that's so she's just an just misrepresenting thing about where she lived in the previous five years my point is she had a good enough memory of those things but why couldn't she remember she's met a year in jail how old  the street and been homeless and why didn't we have a doctor come in and say this is a this is a problem with this kind of when you get under these kinds of circumstances i understand what the case is what it is you are you understand what i mean judge five questions he stole right out of my mouth the bottom line is she remembers some things but not a year in jail the problem is she remember some things but the things she absolutely needed to say and then she comes forth and say as and there's all kinds of evidence that maybe somebody can be repressed and not get it but there's not that no evidence no records nothing i can suggest one can remember this or that but leave out the very most important stuff and then we got no doctor to tell us that what's going on here is really worthwhile otherwise you're saying on a summary judgment the district court has to believe her and go to trial well from everything that i can read the district court should have taken the respondents sworn statement i think he did take the district court for an statement but there was no reason to believe it because it wasn't it wasn't valid that there was nothing validity about it of their being able to testify it is not unbelievable testimony there are tri issues here and the judge leapt over the requirements to to read favorably this response and this applicant's sworn statement in the most favorable light can give all the credit you want to something but if it does can't give any credence to what you're saying then the district court can review it all that they want to but they can't give any substance they can't give any reason to deny or to yeah to deny the summary judgment that's what i'm saying we do this in medical malpractise cases we do this and in common ordinary negligence cases we do this all the time we have to give  give and this is one where there's no credence allowed does the court not believe that there are issues of tribal fact here or can't be drivable fact if you can't give credence to any fact that's been  e an article from science daily reputable source publication that tells us that some stressful patients with rip pressed traumatic memories and i think what you're arguing is that she has gone through  boyfriend and a mother then then then left her and her and the other siblings and went back to mexico with the boyfriend who was who was she underwent a long period group therapy and individual therapy and by that process the fog she's learned how to deal with them and she's a different person today and she's been out of present what how many years four years or years and she's brought her children back to where she works as a solution sue chef and nice restaurant this and eggo for her eldest daughter isn't in college and san diego state with the state because all the state finally came up with was on this question of material right yes you know ok the end of the day we believe that the government has not proven its please the court ari nizer off on behalf of the united states just very quickly that my opponent mentioned that his client did not have to disclose anything before five charge indicted convicted so on and so forth and she checked off you know she again we iterated that under oath while undergoing her interview and so she ha asked if you've ever been arrested and she indicated you know although she had been a number of times i've just like to point out your honors that science article that you just mentioned is not a record  what could she recall i mean your counsel suggests that she can't recall or a s she can't recall going to jail for almost  years she can recall all these things she can recall a bench warrant she can recall all kinds of things what could she recall of the same time period while she recalled in  detail where she had lived the job she had had she had failed the first time to citizenship examination she had the presence of mind to ask for a retake prepare for it and pass a second time so she was able to do that the evidence points in the direction of and there's no dispute about any of that that she had the presence of mind to fill out that application and fully remember all those childhood or understood things from her teenage years  i don't see i suppose information going back before the five years but it's funny that her memory would there's no evidence in the record to show that she remembered those those and the bench warrant was and to the time of the bench warrant which was issued and for which she did not show up in court and as a fugitive she would have not been able to naturalize if carefully the exhibit that the government counsel wants to use to point out that the appellant had the proper state of mind to remember her interested and i believe that the record shows that any arrest and the time spent in custody would have been in other cities other than san diego so i'm not even sure that miss castro what is remembered where she lived she did put down addresses but they're all sandiego addresses we asked that the court please return this case remained the case to the district court so that the case moves forward to a trial on the evidence that make you let me ask you this she was more than nine been sexually abused her and then she became a permanent legal resident in  of two years that her mother rented a room to a man who sexually abused her and the other boyfriend for more than the year and five daily group therapy sessions this went on and this this is when she realized she walked out memories from her abusive  multiple times she walked out the pastor survive criminal this is not this is a very sympathetic figure who only asks to have her case return to the district court and go forward on trial on the merits i thank you