hard for life without a waiver from ever returning i think i think we have those facts particularly in mind and maybe what what you could be most helpful in doing is obviously from the standpoint in terms of the standards of review that we have at this particular level tell me how in a legal sense because obviously there are you know in terms of certain credibility findings or certain f child ren and that he's paid taxes and you know that he doesn't have a criminal record he's not necessarily i mean there are some people that obviously come in here with more convictions all you know all sorts of you know have never done anything right and he's obviously done a lot of required by appellate standards i understand and i think the issue then with the did my client make a timely retraction when he came to the border on the day he was arrested at the border he did initially say to the border inspector that he was a u s citizen that i think that the record is i don't think any reasonable fact finder could conclude that my client didn't immediately i have an employment authorization document the government has argued that my client waited seven or eight hours before he admitted that he was well u s citizen what actually happened your honor is that he waited seven or eight hours before giving a sworn statement and that is standard i mean that's what usually happens is when a person is detained a sworn statement isn't taken immediately from from my client is uncontroverted he said he would have had an employment authorization document which i took to be an admission of alien that immediately after he initially said he was a u s citizen now so from the government and their perspective on what the facts were again their side of it says that he immediately said that he had a work authorization and that's not the way i read the record that's not the way the government is that obviously that the government has documentation in the record where it's alleged that my client attempted to abscond and in a secondary and secondary inspection but nobody came to court to testify those facts like this where the the the consequences of a finding of a father of a false statement or a misrepresentation is so great that the statute should be construed very narrow sorry i don't want to you know from the standpoint that's why i'm asking for you know give me the facts tell me how you know from a principle stamp right that we can reach the result that you're asking us to really reach and i think when you say that it should be that you know that's not my call my ass from the stand my understanding is that your client has the pardon i think and it's a fairly high burden unfortunately and something quite beyond a reasonable doubt for false statement the burden doesn't necessarily should necessarily be that it's not a question of the mist of the libby it's a question of his being barred for life from ever returning without the possibility of a waiver and  there are some cases from the even from the board of immigration appeals that i cited which strictly construe the misrepresentation statute on the ground in the civility precisely because of the grave consequences that flow from  finding of inadmissibility under the section of the law which is a lifetime bar and in the case of a person who falsely claims of a u s citizen the bar is permanent and there's no waiver in the law for that offense so when you take all those factors into consideration and also the fact that my client was never warned of the consequences of claims of a u s citizen the court can find on the record that my client proves that he did who has the burden of proof before an immigration judge that the person who was appearing before the immigration judge trace standpoint exactly you know what the evidence was and what from your perspective is you know why we should deny this petition well the immigration judges determination you tell me the standard i'm not quite sure of what the standard the in the government that the board uses in cases like that because that doesn't apply here there's no permanent bar to the petitioner in this case he wasn't chair charging down in  can you be more specific as to what he would have to show well he would have to show most likely that he's eligible under section eleven fifty for a one way to be granted some sort of vsa and well that's that's the board's review and that's how the board will as as interpreted that section of the statutes and that's how it will be reviewed the immigration judge is finding a fact but at this court still reviews those findings of fact under the substantial evidence standard there it seems to me that there is a serious concern in the government's position i also wonder why the government wishes to press this particular issue after all he's removable he's going to be removed and this gives unless he could somehow get a waiver which seems very doubtful he's banned from ever coming back to the united states despite the fact that he'll have citizen children he has we don't have jurisdiction of course we've got  documents for them where the petitioner is trustworthiness is an issue in this case he admitted that he lied to california state authorities by claiming he was a mexican citizen when you applied for his driver's license and he also had a counterfeit mexican birth certificate on him your pretend that wasn't exactly correct right then he was forever barred well here's the problem well i mean but if but the thing is he wasn't statutorily forever you're assuming that he wouldn't get the waiver well and yes that's true under the charge that was brought by the government but as a practical matter when my client someday if he tries to really immigrate or immigrate to the united states lawfully the fact that he was arrested one time and that a false statement was found will come up at his permanent residence interview and the government as they should do will the well explore that further and it will come out that an immigration judge found that he had falsely claimed u s citizenship and that will permanently bar him even if he wasn't charged under that section in these proceedings and that's the problem i think that the finding by the judge of for all of that comes all the way up to the ninth circuit in this firm will be  later by the government to keep my client from ever getting ever immigrated so whether he was charged in that section or not well i i guess i guess the point there is that what i'm hearing the government say and i'm not hearing know i'm not i'm not saying that that's an intentional misrepresentation but it sounds like in terms of the section her her representation on that is a little more legally accurate you're assuming that at the end he says going to be permanently bar well yes because because of the fine that he falsely claimed us citizenship it may be an issue of race judicata that will be that will hang around my client forever it's an issue that's been decided and even though he wasn't