however in a situation such as petitioner born abroad rebuttable presumption of illness arises in the burden of proof temporarily shifts over if the deportees such as position in this case can produce credible evidence in support of a derivative citizenship claim the initial burden upon the government to prove by a prove removed billy by convincing evidence come back comes back into play along which to establish that rigged assistantship in this instance is that which was in place when petition was mexico a considerable amount of time and we and we know that she basically couldn't remember where she lived had during the ten years needed why isn't that illiteracy and i remember when i was illiterate when i was three four years old and i remember when my children were and what you do is teach little kids where they live so that if they need help getting home they can now i don't know any illiterate adults and i and i never have i don't think so maybe it's different but i would have thought even a literate people would memorize where they walking her home and he says where do you live trial well i think that it suggests think that the records suggest that for the most test one of the she rarely even left when she did show up with the parents so i think that she was never really in the position to have to remember exactly why she if he was an adult for much of this time she would never have to get and i imagine she was probably too poor to have a car a lot of that time that she didn't save but if that's so there might be cajuns when she need to camp to take her  the standard there is all we have to prove is that it's a not frivolous claim that writ of citizenship in this instance the traditional principles of summary judgment apply and it's a lower standard than the initial burden of proof  allowed by the i j a the i j a had problems with the with the foundation of it but i think that number one that previous attorney was disbarred one that is but secondly that is certainly an issue that could be developed  think that the fact that she did directly testify that she was in el centro from ages seventeen to twenty one considering the fact also that she had one at least one of the five years in sixty nine which was through the taxes and then also regardless of what the i j a said about their not being in and the brothers of citizenship claimed getting it through the mother regardless of the id saying that that's not important there is there is evidence and there's a case law the attorney general and granting citizenship claim is an act of attorney general is probative evidence in itself and if you could follow me for a second that the i j a said that it was irrelevant what happened with the brother i would submit that is relevant because for that brother to get that we have three years left to go in to prove that i don't think that that would be a difficult situation especially if that list that was submitted that the i think had a foundation problems with were to be proven and developed further adventure hearing what is good about that list was that it was provided without any foundation as to how those addresses were gathered or by whom they were gathered given that the mother was on able to remember those same addresses that's not just a technical foundation problem that's him saying i have no idea what these addresses me yes or i would say that would that would go to the general sophistication of the petitioners mother goes to whether that list is made up or whether somebody else not under oath is suggesting in your i'd i fully understand that it was not properly the foundation was not properly laid act at the individual merits hearing but what i would say is that if it went back to the district court i think that this this this list suggests that there is a trial issue of fact i mean that's a that's a lot to come up with a lot to fabricate to come up with the situation like that i think that that could be developed and evidence for him for the district court she's not and she's she's telling the court and you can not lying but ignorant of the truth your honor i would i would say that she she testified that she was living in the essential from seventeen to twenty one if you were to were there any other activities that could pin down her whereabouts in a specific time frame and she couldn't really remember she says she didn't go to church and she didn't go to school so they were there would be no records or confirmation from external evidence of where she was during this time period there was no you know detailed explanation of why didn't she remember i agree with you that people are looking for it i mean you know your external evidence most people would have a hard time coming up with ext unless they had hold what it was that they saved or something of where they've lived for a short time many years ago but remember yes no i agree and i know how to get home if they get lost so i don't believe that her illiteracy would excuse her not knowing her address and in fact we don't even need to know a specific address we just want to know was she in the u s or was she and that's khalil and even on that street was very vague and inconclusive in her testimony she kept saying well then i was with my parents but no i was just visiting them but no i lived with them when i met my husband and i nine hundred fifty so i think one key fact to keep in mind here is that the beginning of this time period in  fifty she claimed that she was living with her parents in mexico and that's when she met her husband and then in one thousand nine hundred eighty one she also at one point said she she gave birth to her first son jose in mexico and she said that she was living there then the court had a chance to explore the various of the list by by examining her and if her testimony we made the same as it was the list would have been thrown out as irrelevant and not of no way whatsoever i think it's even less probative fourteen the state department form that they used to fill out this list of residence that indicates that even for the state department in issuing a passport it would not view that list of residences alone  in the credibility challenge as such have the mother been able to recall places of residence with the level of specificity the i j a was looking for it would to discredit her claim consistent claim of littery throughout the proceedings in addition this is a period getting anywhere between thirty to fifty is to support the fact that she was here when she married because of the marriage certificate the marriage just gets that they were married here and that was in one nine hundred seventy so i was just about that in terms of of a timeline that we're having we have between the time that she was fourteen