government they maintain it doesn't our position is clear that it does the second is that the question of whether or not the ins must accept the consequences of its actions as they relate to the oath just as my client had to accept the consequences of his pleas for and the question of whether or not the eye and asked why having my client or the petitioner signed the oath of citizenship whether or not that made him a citizen national or at the very least to stop the ins from contesting his national status and if you say i'm going to do it this is the way it is and i think that richard was the secretary of state drives that home the fact is the government asked mr evans on a garcia to give the oath and the records unclear as to exactly what happened at that meeting at that interview  actually looking to go and explore that issue and then decide not to do so and we maintain that's where the you know that the very mere fact of taking that oath is enough to you know it's it's affirmative misconduct it element into its two parts first is to the extent that something was said to mr of nagar say at the time they took the oath of citizenship it's untrue there had to be some level of on truth there either that the oath didn't mean anything at all  except that the government means he told him that it was meaningless that was just a step on the way to full national naturalization which frankly we don't know whether that happened or not because the record isn't about that we may say that that in fact was untrue and the question of intent and that there's no way that he could have done that taking that oath without acknowledging the alida believing that there wasn't gonna be consequence to it which is untrue or that there was and the fact is the government's position is now no there really was no consequence at all so  english test he passed a civics test and he went and he took he took the oath of citizenship and i think that's the case go back for serino really sort of drives home the fact that here we're not talking about necessarily a violation of the statute or well in the opinion itself there was a significant notice taken of the fact that the ins has had a track record in the past of granting citizenship to people who may not have necessarily math requirements people who couldn't speak english as robin daughter could people who think it was the fact and we think we have the power to reopen and we said all that's final you can reopen it absent certain circumstances well in this case and of course they had the option to bring an action in court to to revoke kind of the statute well we believe that's the eight also within the department's own regulations there's room for the minister for that for the ins to sit there and say that we not we're not going to necessarily have a public ceremony for that particular requirement isn't there so they said they were talking and that that's become a citizen and all kinds of safeguards and it be a public manner well absolutely and the government congress shifted authority from that from the courts to the attorney general and the ins is the attorney general one of the arguments it was never raised down below was as it was an argument that the ins official who actually given the oath wasn't empowered to do that if there's a question about whether that's true whether that's the case or not we will we firmly believe that were and how to remount on those issues that there are issues of material fact about subjective or objective matter it's really just a question of whether production for the somehow operates to block what actually happened here here's a man who built his entire life in this country he owns a home he's made mistakes it's true short on time here but again it really is a question really is about given the oath the fact is that established his nationality as stablish to citizenship and to the fact of the government has a pattern of giving the oath the people who  might have done it who might not have necessarily gone that last step of having their having everything approved we say that that's a pattern that's a pattern of false promises it was being made to only those people who have gone far enough in the process to get there that have met those qualifications stand qualify for so that this is not really a situation of throwing up open the floodgates for really recognizing that for these limited people the slim a group of people in this subset particular mr of dr sia that he's entitled to have these he was actually removed prior to the time for appeal to go through view which is why the reasons why he didn't receive no he didn't receive those of the final order until after was that some several months later this court court has for the i'd asked to allow him back and that the while he was here because he was unable to make bail he'd been in detention for a long period of time you know and as we read it as we mentioned our brief during its removal process was continued several times because the attorney who was supposed to be representing him the first time this that he felt that he tried to fight removal wasn't even attorney was fraudulent and when they found out to be i had determined that that wasn't enough to reopen the case but the government and the  additional information what was that well and in the first round of proceedings he was asked two things one was whether or not he had to register for the selective service he said he had but at the time  in which the oath was given in the first place you want to have the person who give the oath appear testify explain what was going on and then somewhere between that first hearing in the second hearing the i just simply shifted gears and decided that on the to get the information telling him that he needed to produce the more information or he would see that and september in september of one thousand nine hundred sixty right around the time a little bit after he committed the crime that he eventually play no contest of that serves as the basis for his a month and a half later so in a sense he had the it get the interview he left they've committed the crime and served as a basis for steve for patient then was notified that his my name is cindy ferrier now be representing the attorney general in this matter first off i would like to make clear that the government does dispute that the oath of naturalization was ever taken by this particular petition and we also want to make clear that this petitioner was denied naturalization his application he was he went for an interview he was requested to provide more information he did not provided by the time you know how is he supposed to know that he's before before a representative of the thirty general who has jurisdiction over the immigration and naturalization service and old there is a requirement under the regulation that an alien indicate his willingness to take the oath of naturalization i believe at that time the process for d h asked was to have the alien read the oath during the interview to sign to it to indicate that they would be willing to do that in a formal ceremony that particular seat that you're looking at it does not indicate that he was actually advised that that was not the oath of naturalization however it was his application was later denied and he did not appeal that it was quite clear that he was never granted citizenship as a naturalized citizen so under p the indication that this will be given to you and you need to be aware that you're going to have to at some point subscribe to this in order to become a naturalized citizen it was just this form that this is now but his application w record evidence does not indicate what that evidence was but we don't even know what he was asked to provide that particular denial is not actually before the court the actual denial is not before the court for its review because he never appealed that is that he was told at that time i cannot i can't say that he was necessarily told that he was that that particular oath would not be the oath of natural station however i can verify that he was told he needed to provide additional documentation in order for his naturalization application to be granted i do you know that because that particular form says that he was referred for on a test interview nonetheless even if the court were to determine th that he was improperly area that's a record is deficient as to what he was told at that time the supreme court has said that neither by the doctrine stoppel nor by the invocation of equitable powers can any court confer record that he necessarily had a lawyer in him even though i hope that's changed that that this barred lawyer can represent an applicant before an immigration reopening remained at proceedings and in fact the immigration judge really heard of the entire case but apply predominate which had come down in the meantime to find that this alien was not a national of the united states and also to consider  why do you do it it's seems perfectly perverse to carry out this policy impoverishing sponsor of abuse by removing the spouse in a way that i mean don't you think about that sort of thing a husband well it's the it's the immigration judges and the their congress has defined this particular transaction as an aggravated felony congress has mean that decision department of homeland security is applying the law in order to institute removal proceedings as it crime of violence if that application is that definition is applied to him and there's no question that this case actually where that definition is being applied to him retroactively because the actual definition in place prior to his actually actually pleading guilty so it's clear that represent what he pled uli that was he had a public defender i believe at the time that was statute which would make him a citizen he did not appeal the denial of his naturalization application and it's clear that he is not a citizen of the united states under predominate the only way that he can become a national is either through birth or court that any court cannot grant citizenship through equitable or is or means of the stoppel there is no question here that he was here but that he cannot be granted here i'll read that neither who were from the philippines or in the law and who wished to apply for citizenship under an expired statute there i believe it was due to their service in the in the military said that was that you know that was a situation where these where these filipino scouts soldiers who served with or were in alliance  and it flies i want to go to your college say yeah sure i just want leave with two quick points the first is that giving him the oath was not in violation of the statute it was consistent with it because the statute moved away from the position suggested by you've all the figaro about the retroactive application but the fact is that you know under cases like tesco versus smart taking away somebody's property that they haven't used for twenty years required to your grace period the fact you mr a dog i see has challenged collaterally his conviction on the basis of the factors attorney didn't tell him under strict orders of washington presumably there's a wide range of attorneys who might wouldn't have known within the first six within the first thirty nine days of  wrist passage and you know on september thirteenth one thousand nine hundred sixty that there's one little section of a two hundred page bill was going to fly immediately and retroactively i think very nose require something more than that at least enough time to allow the written publication to get out to attorneys that we have at this point and we don't have anything with us largely based on the statutory requirements about what the record could be right and what i mean when i was asking i just hope in our families there's nothing in the record and again otherwise