case that their case boils down to the document i to thirteen normally that's a summary of an interview with the individual fine officer that's not what it is here  the eye to thirteen is just a summary of an investigation we have disputed the elements of the i two thirteen as multiple hearsay but putting that issue aside as a secondary british passport to obtain documents namely a social security card a driver's license and a bank account and that somebody apparently in hudson used that passport to enter the united states bible and that he later was trent transferred to his uncle but his uncle is cannot be found about all of that as to whether he was really ever a thirteen my notes indicate that this gentleman executed two not one but two so security applications showing his place of birth to be london england is that correct well that was using united states if he probably doesn't have any recollection of were he was born but that's the exception here is the rule how can you say the evidence that the government has presented is not pretty clear that he has held himself and more than one occasion as a british subject is the  acknowledges having done those things but for what purpose because he lacked any other identification document he it didn't matter to him what place of birth or what exact state he used because he obtained the british passport to obtain some ability to have an identity document and that is all he used the passport for for the exact things that the court just mentioned the social security card the driver's license and actually bank account too but not because there was some benefit to him that he was born in london that matched the document that he was able to obtain as his testified on the street not not that he had it from the british consulate and not that it mattered that it was british per se so the so the government's evidence that yes he used a british passport chain tain those documents  but he also explains you grew that well he doesn't say i was born in california i have a phony passport i'm trying to get benefits can i use this passport right well no because he  he says i was born in england and to convert money to get as i have through or fall to get a document not financial benefit but to get the the ability to have a bank account and have some id to enroll in school well that was his motivation to get his social security to that point he couldn't keep trying england was only pick a british passport so he didn't pick it he testified he bought bought it on the street and that's the one that he was able to get it wasn't that he sought evidence that immigration came up with in court it's not like they showed that to california and then california decided to seal them but nobody determined from out on that so you how someone who has no or extremely limited ability little my time but i will answer that which is she doesn't have any more than mr murphy did in the murphy case in the exact same situation but that can't be held against him when the burden is on the government the issue as far as i understand it they rely mainly on murphy but murphy is distinguishable from this fact from this case in many material respects first of all in murphy there was  point apparently there was the informant in murphy was an anonymous informant from someone after streets but in this case the i two thirteen wasn't information it didn't come from anyone anonymous a lot of the information came from a personal interview by joe agent smirnoff of mr makiya at the sentencing at the criminal sentencing when he first encountered him and that was initial preparation  actually thirteen based on that that interview agents manof then went and looked at the police records the criminal investigation and based and it was involving forgery and bad checks it and if the court decides that there isn't then it can go ahead and decide that issue based on the record that exists before it now so the first question is do you have a position as to whether a explain just a little bit it's not a perfect analogy because in this case the the man movement the movement would be the government saying there is no genuine issue the court should decide the none of that would be partition or because he would be the person at trial who  he doesn't like the case transferred to district court but assuming that he did that he did want to travel for a trial i don't know of a trial before the district court he is required under rule fifty six to come forward with more than just his own so it seems to me that the supreme court even in augusta given the many permutations of the petitioners case petitioner story in that case even in that case the supreme court said we're going to leave that question open because under rule fifty six it's only reasonable you'd be better off going you can say things that summary judgment a court isn't liberally spine so implausible as not to raise a genuine issue of material fact yes ther stanstead of setting rules to us tell us what other evidence in the record makes his statement i was one of the united states so implausible that district judge can put it to one side so what other evidence is there in the record of says this simply can't be it can't be the case that he had no recordable transactions or interactions with the outside world during those twenty two twenty three years and he admitted that he lived in an apartment or in various houses or addresses in los angeles where he now lives so it seems to me that he could very well try and track down his old address and his old neighbors and see who was living there who remembered him he apparently said that he tried to get records from school of his can't be right because this court does have to review the evidence the government presented and determine whether or not the first was well well the term and whether th burned remains with the government so so so is the evidence clear convincing an unequivocal it can't be on on what the government has presented that's what we asked the court to find and now if the the immigration judge allowed to happen below the provision exists when there is no hearing to allow all the evidence to be presented but all those questions were on the table in front of the immigration judge the records developed on that do you person up till now there's no suggestion they've come up with new evidence how many hearings for pm well it went to the boy immigration appeals they went back down there was a whole new hearing then went to the board and they screwed up and went back down and then a new decision and now it's gone up on appeal again district court would you like us to give a hint to the district court that maybe the list are going to move forward rapidly