but this particular case is not arise under the fraud provision that we were just talking about i believe it does ok ok basically she does come here from from the philippines she gets married and and the question here is whether at the time when they got married in the philippines he entered into the marriage in good faith philippines and lived together for three weeks and the marriage was consummated in the philippines and the dispute it was over the answer there he takes the position that it was a gift she takes the position my aunt has been lots of money it and apparently he did not want to pay and he left and then she did try to have for the contact with him and there was no contact and then she decided well this is not going anywhere might as well go ahead and file for divorce beca you morning mayfly to court david down again on behalf of the respondent the attorney general the board's conclusion that mrs freeman provided false testimony is supported by substantial evidence of the record and her generalized arguments on appeal do not statement you can you can gather that the immigration judge observed her and found that from her actions there and her demeanor that he did not find her to be credible he doesn't provide any further detail as to what those exact actions were or or or what may have led them to that particular conclusion but he does provide the court with several examples of inconsistency in her testimony and providing additional additional support for his already supported conclusion that she was not credible i mean he went through and explained v such a minor issue would cause such a huge marital rift he he he noted that that explanation that claim was inconsistent with her prior sworn statement that she was actually afraid of him and thought he might hit her and thought voluntary departure and then they may be able to leave and then not forfeit the ability to come back into the united states or not be subject to a provision that would require them to wait a certain period of time before reapplying for admission to the united states and so to the extent that somebody may be granted a voluntary departure they may be able to avoid those those those delays in trying to return to the united states if you wish if you had been granted voluntary departure and left the country what would be the mechanism for her to to regain admission to the united states and then she would have to apply for another visa to come to the united states under whatever basis she may be eligible to make that application reapply to her new husband that's possible however she may be subject to a a still determined based on the testimony mr freeman and everything else yes your honor the immigration judge could still come to the conclusion in his discretion to deny voluntary departure  i don't think it makes it on reviewable what it does is heighten the deference that this court should grant to the credibility determination at least with regard to him as to his observations of her demeanor of when she came in she was not married for more than two years when she arrived in the united states so she was granted conditional permanent resident status if during that two year period she is then divorced that under the regulations the normal course of proceedings would be in the end would come to the united states within after the two year period within ninety days to apply for oh the waiver of the conditional permanent resident status the waiver issue the burden is upon her to show that it was in fact a good faith marriage from the very beginning  provision for her coming to his apply for the waiver is confusing because it doesn't appear that it should fix the issue of the divorce during the two year period however the  has read it to include to allow a petitioner such as the one in this case to apply for the waiver anyway and whether it will be granted or not is really a discretionary decision by the attorney general with respect to voluntary departure correct your honor so with regard to the the requests for suspension of deportation and the request for voluntary departure it's the decision by the immigration judge that there was false testimony which  used to find that she was statutorily precluded from showing good moral character and therefore couldn't was ineligible for either voluntary departure or suspension with regard to the waiver it's a it's a it's a more standard of from establishing good moral character she's also barred on the stop time all law from establishing seven years continuous physical presence and her arguments on appeal failed to establish that the board abused its discretion in this matter thank you on this issue of one hundred barger because the judge found this is freeman to be law and therefore she claimed and she found her that she was not a person of good moral character