all right our second case for this morning is the seanad against u s c i s united states citizenship and immigration services socially on two grounds first for providing false information in order to obtain an immigration benefit and second for not having a valid immigrant piece at the time he entered the united states the main contention by the government is that the appellant was married at the time he entered the united states and he entered on an immigrant be set based on his status as the unmarried son of a lawful permanent resident and you know even if we were to agree with you that the state of his marriage was contested says he has no children and he had two children and it's not the kind of thing people mix up usually you have to respect it's only two and you know he he also is changing his name so over time you know the baptismal certificate city submits are not regular i guess i look at this case and i think there's just too much falsely here at least too much for me to think that there is an abuse of discretion on the part of you want to see i asked and acting as they did well let me clarify this first your honor when he applied for the immigrant when he submitted the immigrant visa application he did so through an agency that's a matter of the record there is an agency an office that he went to he does not he did not write or speak english at the time and the application was entirely in the english language and his passport indicated that his status  single and so he what he believes happened was that the agency put that he had no children because it assumes a single man is not going to have children he has ties we have no record of that i mean i guess doesn't that feels too  well he's testified to these events your honor it's in the it's in the record he said that he went to this office they gave him the paper he signed it but nobody reviewed it with him and this application itself reflects the fact that you're saying that it was prepared by an application he signed to it and then that he's testified that when he went and he affirmed the accuracy of the application that what he understood was being asked of the owner was to affirm that he had about his military service in iraq to affirm a question about his military service in iraq and so he was questioned about that but he says he never understood that he was asked to affirm the entire contents of the application with what troubles me about this this particular fact is it's it's not it's not a small one in the context of this fact pattern where the basis upon which he was going to be admitted among other things was that he was unmarried so it seems to me that he had an incentive not to list his children because how do you listed his children it may raise the question whether he was married and then you know it may have been difficult for me at that point in time so can you address that it's seems far from and from something immaterial or an oversight well the easiest way can answer that your honor is that it may have that and that's why hearing should have been conducted is to determine what his intent was what actually occurred i think that a trier could have believed his version of events and so long as that's the case it should have at least heard of his situation before basically every country in the world with minor minor exceptions and these papers are things that need to be relied on and if we have to have a hearing every time somebody says oh i didn't really understand it i'm not a native english speaker well i don't argue that is worth nothing your honor i think that the history of the case law shows that hearings are conducted on this to determine intent that that is the process that's afforded to petitioners in this case and i would go back to the genuine issues in this particular case as well the government's source for the proffered wedding date has changed on at least two occasions and i am saying i don't disagree with you that if the only question before us were was he mar was he not me i think the government has maybe evidence it could be billy but maybe not be viable evidence about whether it was one nine hundred ninety six or one nine hundred ninety or two thousand and six or you know which city and all the rest year it's a messy record i agree with you but that's not the only problem in this record that's well there we are there was something else that you had raised your honor and that was his using different names he actually has a different names the marriage certificate the one nine hundred ninety six i think it was proffered by the government uses a different name or i'm sorry the one thousand and six marriage registry uses a different name he actually hasn't i mean he has he's used to essentially one name since he's entered the united states while his mother's petition seems to refer to him as the family name rod first namely middle name william you think aside from the government's evidence it's all consistent gunshot i didn't hear that coming here and if you're telling me that the only time to see other names are in the evidence which are contesting from the government certainly not from the petitioner himself if it was somewhere else it may have been but it was not from the petitioner himself he's only used one name receiver him can ask here what may seem like a really pesky factual question this report was trouble on the on the on the unfit morality by the no question the no answer to the question have you ever given any false testimony in connection with trying to an immigration benefit are we absolutely sure that question was asked it seems from the record it was and what do you base that upon because when i look at the transcript exhibit nine to the government's motion for summary judgment i actually don't see that question in the transcript but what i do see is that is that mr b john stipulated that it was  what why did he do that and what's that based upon i couldn't answer that question because i wasn't representing him at the time i what i did see from the record was it does seem that the question was asked of him if he had ever given false information and he did answer no  and he contends that he has not given false information i don't see that in the transcript to you i don't i think that it's the immigration officer says yes i asked that question and got any answer but i don't see it in the transcript i i don't i can't answer the question right now your honor i think that if you'd like i can write a poem that's our argument memorandum on it i mean he did seem to stipulate to it which i didn't like why didn't why would you know i think and i was representing him at the time but i have to say that it is a question that's asked on the end four hundred application and it is a question from my experience that is consistently asked at the interview so i don't think there's much room to contest it but i  to whether petitioner met the requirements for naturalization but the primary point on which the government seems to be wrong is the question whether at the time he come to stand he was really married and eat find the evidence quite conflicting on that point we've got this ninety ninety thing and then the guy says oh you know i didn't really mean one nine hundred ninety i made a mistake it's nineteen ninety six the names aren't the same know all these pages in the local language john help me too much credit but there's some evidence that it's not until two thousand and six and also evidence that he was kind of keeping his relationship under wraps because maybe that's you know and out of wedlock relationship is frowned on and in many countries i don't know which way it goes but it looks like not the just for summary judgment it  looks to me like it's a real problem and i don't see the government making any argument about the statement that there were no children in the two thousand and three applications so i'm wondering if there's a waiver there well the district court  definitely we certainly have made the argument that there's a false testimony problem here and you rely on the the no one children i don't i don't see there but i think i mean what what are our argument was that he certainly should have given the correct answer that question have you ever given false testimony or have you ever given false or misleading information to the government the answer that question should argument the marriage issue and the false baptismal certificates isn't that the basis of your argument for lying on that there's there's the false baptism and there's also the fact that when he was when he was pressed to explain and why do you admitted his i mean when you when you go back to two thousand and six he admits that he submitted the suggestions on behalf of his children in a letter to u s c i s he stated that the reason that he omitted them from his application was not because someone else filled out the application which is what we're hearing today which is that the the the perfectly proper that he's offering now instead what he said  back in two thousand and six was that after a time or at the time that he was filling out that two thousand three visa application he had no contact with this children but what i think counsel is saying is that the two thousand and three fisa application that was submitted on his behalf that was filled out by an agency right now that the two thousand and six with the baptists and certificates must tell that by an agency right but so what happened was that after he entered the united states he then petitioned for his children to come in and when u s c i s noticed that he was petitioning for children to come in they also noticed the fact that earlier on he had not indicated that he had any children so u s c s followed up with him and said so which is it did you have are these children yours or aren't they and his response to that question was that well the reason i left them off my application was that because it was the war was happening and i didn't have any contact with my children that statement is just impossible to square with the statement that he made to us c i s and his november thirtieth sworn statement in support of naturalization he was asked where did your wife and children live when you left iraq in two thousand and thirteen and he said i took them with me so his statements and this is in the deposition this is in the sworn statements he repeatedly clarifies that what happened was he was living in iraq in two thousand and three up until the moment that the family decided to leave i think i think chief judge words question though is isn't it cleaner to folk get especially given his and his his language skills are really deficient that's the problem i have with the baptism and certificate argument i think i read that transcript and i think he's he's really confused as to what's being asked but i think chief judge would question isn't the cleaner just to rely upon the absence of his children on his own application i think that's an equally valid basis i mean his claim now is that well it wasn't actually me who filled out that application so you know as your honor noted he did nevertheless attest to the accuracy of it when he was asked to do so at the consulate and what i'm trying to nail down it's really chattery issue you know i'm trying to figure out what was the ground us c i s ground or grounds that the u s c i s gave in the district court as this application about children was false and the district court does mention what you just alluded to that a few years later when he's asked why didn't you mention the children instead of saying an agency filled out this happily cation and i didn't realize that they were omitted he says i had lost contact with them but if those were not problems and that u s c i s was giving to the just true judge the basis for the decision then you're asking us to then the whole basically you're asking us to fill in something that the government just didn't rely on before well judge i think it's important to recall that this isn't like a testimony issues of the district court no we didn't that's the problem you know what i think that there's a pretty long line of cases that stand for the notion that once someone files a naturalization a naturalization petition under fourteen twenty one c it's the task immigration benefits that's the evidence of the petition or subject of intent well the district court addressed this as well i think it's i don't think there's any question that when the titian was being asked this question have you ever given false or misleading information you know this was at the end of an administrative appeal process this was on is this with the november thirtieth two thousand and twelve interview after his application had already been denied and when his m four hundred had been denied us the i r s told him point blank we think it's a problem that you committed any reference from your of your children so it's this isn't like an instance when he was caught unawares and had no it had no chose to double down these these misrepresentations and it and false information this may not have been a problem these outside of the five year period but on nov thirtieth he was given an opportunity to either come clean really and explain the situation as he's trying to explain it now or as this report said double down on these previous misrepresentations and as the district court said you know he he chose to double down and that's really the problem in terms of establishing his good moral character now is the fact that it's pretty clear that he gave what amounts to false test felt false oral statements under oath during that november thirtieth two thousand and twelve sworn statement first i'd like to have director cliff may thank you to the case united states the profanity and that in that case court dealt with an italian immigrant who had misrepresented his criminal convictions in italy upon entering the court in that case left it to the lower court to determine his subjective intent when he was answering those questions on the immigrant visa application and i would say that hearing should have been held in this case he chose to double down was the language used by the district court judge and i think that that's a statement that really can only be made when we've done a credibility to serve a nation how can you say somebody double down or lied how do you determine what weight to give any kind of evidence or testimony before actually hearing from them this is exactly why summary judgment is reserved for cases where there are no genuine issues of material and that hearings are required in this case thank you all right thank you very much