for the truth of what if the surgeon said that there was a valid marriage contract this seems to me to be saying that we if we have this  if we have a document that says you're married that's all the government has to all government has to introduce that automatically it would seem to need that that shifts the burden certificates all over the place that have signatures doctors and nurses and what have you on them and those people are all bad somebody wants to prove that they were or what admitted and this carries was it made it in there in precisely the way that you event foreign documents there are certainly cases in which i've tried where i've thought gee you know if i had to do it over again i would do it differently i'm at a loss to think how i would do it differently in this case what we have here is the document was certified by the archives in the philippines that the consular office has signed the appropriate certification saying i recognize the certificate the finding of exceptional circumstances is wrong because we didn't live together for five years before getting married so if you distill the defense argument the burden of proof that have been on the government to prove that these two people live together for five years and therefore their marriage was valid if the presumption of regularity means that the government has to go that far then it means nothing and  distance the courts and trying to conduct business so it can't however far you mean if you are required to delve it can't be that you have to delve that far  with respect to the the alternative findings again the fact that these were self serving statements has every bit as much relevance in a criminal proceeding as it does i mean i'm not frankly sure how the immigration proceedings actually how that would cut i'm not an immigration lawyer but certainly in a criminal trial where there's a jury trial or avenged trial  one of the considerations people use in credibility as what is the interest of this person in making that statement and the fact that it's a self serving statement that's unsupported by anything is something that's considered by further i think it is also incorrect to characterize the charge is not delving into the contract although he believed in the made the finding the government's position of of the presumption of regularity was correct of why they were asserting that this marriage was improper and ultimately rejected and that was sponsored to that is well the judge just can't reject it and it is the appellant who is confusing the matter with immigration blanket but i think they are and i think that it is not appropriate to say that because the somehow this because remember gratian issues that somehow this transmogrified into an immigration hearing and the judges the role of the finder of fact in making credibility determinations watching the witnesses testifies somehow gone further even if we had some kind of standard where it was the government had to come forward and say yeah this is how we support the judge's findings there's a lot of support for the judge finding that he that these witnesses were not credible for one thing  matter how you take their story they have to be lying somewhere it's a classic situation of where you vine now are you are you why now are you lying that if you accept their story they went through this elaborate charade and lied to various people in terms of getting that document more significantly the story they told at trial doesn't make sense they said that they went through this elaborate proceeding because he had a job overseas and wanted to send  check sue his not his not then girlfriend he said that he needed to do that because he didn't trust his father and that is mother would be did didn't trust his father he did trust his mother but that his father would be offended if you sent it to his mother so therefore he had to send it to his girlfriend but the company wouldn't let him send it to his girlfriend so we have to get marriage to show it was married rather than go getting a false document which if you were going to to do that was going to be the most sensible he goes visit someone comes up with the idea of having apparently legal but defective marriage and then when asked about it he said that he never actually sent the marriage certificate to the company but it turned out not to be necessary it's not a story that even even told you know on a on an appellate version much less actually hearing it in court which inspires a great deal of credibility so i think that the judge was absolutely correct in his finding about credibility he didn't make the alternative fighting and it's the government's position that very in both both there is a presumption of regularity added other circumstances you could have considered the marriage contract is enough without delving behind it but that in fact you maybe alternative evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and if the defendant can't come up with a reasonable doubt according to this particular