that so the the the beneficiary also recanted that two thousand and nine sworn statement in a two thousand and eleven interview with immigration and then further provided additional affidavits after that the other evidence that the agency relied on was simply the handwritten letter that it obtained from the beneficiaries ex wife and in no other type of case would a party or an adjudicative body be allowed to rely so heavily on a handwritten letter that came out of nowhere u s c i s falsely referred to the ex wife's letter before was actually provided to us as a sworn statements but once the federal litigation was filed and it was only in response to the federal litigation that we actually saw this letter w handwritten statement that we had no idea where it came from what prompted it three years after their divorce who it was addressed to you know why or or you know whether or not the ex wife  that was submitted could bar this person from ever obtaining a green card so that is why the board of immigration appeals has held that the standard for making a fraud finding in a marriage case is substantive  probative evidence so although in this case the agency did disclose the contents of the ex wife's letter this case provides a great example of why u s c i should also require wire that you have an actual opportunity to examine the letter itself because again they repeatedly in the notice of intent to deny and these decisions refer to it as a sworn statement when in fact there was no at  handwritten letter and there was no chain of custody or any other information about where this letter came from and had the petitioner known this in advance of having to file this lawsuit after the board say there could have been other arguments made other steps taken to determine the sufficiency of the letter to argue against its reliability to request a more detailed explanation of where it came  from to hire a handwriting expert to examine at but the petitioner was not given the opportunity to do any of these things because prior to filing th appeal in district court the petitioner was under the impression that this letter from the ex wife was in fact a sworn statement didn't the marriage broker pled guilty also admit that this was a was not part of that litigation so you know although it does have a bad reputation and conviction in that case it doesn't mean that every single case she touched was fraudulent  a lot of evidence of joint accounts and you know other items that would normally be taken as evidence of a bonafide marriage their reliance on this one letter and on this statement that was la that he had been in an accident that he was on medication and that's how it all consistent with what he said it states was the agency required to take what he said at face value that they were required to consider it certainly and  really supports only one plausible conclusion and that's that mr seagull's marriage to his miller was fraudulent though it doesn't have to support only one conclusion for you to win but i'm troubled by the government sloppiness with respect to repeatedly describing this bill or state want which ordinarily the the agency treats as an important feature of such a statement i understand that your honor i i don't believe the agency knew that it was not sworn purgative know that if it was saying it was sworn i think the reference to it being sworn is just just there i don't think they're really it's an error right i don't but i'm saying is i don't think that there was a misperception on the part of that the i a e a or the or the us yes that it was if that were the only evidence would that be a troubling problem in terms of the old if if that handwritten statement the statement was part of the record of proceedings and so was there a reason why it wasn't provided to the petitioners or the plaintiffs in this case i believe the only reason is that u s c asked doesn't do that in the normal practice and that that's not really a reason i mean if this is the probative evidence that the agency is going to be relying on it would seem to be fairly elementary that you provide a copy to or an opportunity to inspect well i understand that maybe that's a better practice from from the point of view and obviously you know  required as a matter of under the regulation or as a matter of due process of the that you're not required to show the evidence that you're relying upon that you're not required to to give the petitioner an opportunity to to actually see physical document this court made that clear in the article a money decision and also income gali obviously you know the agency would be free to do that and perhaps at some point they should change the practice and do that but it's not legally required and that's that's all i'm about what sense does that make that it's not legally required well i mean it's just a process given in this case then then was given in sagal the money and galley decisions that the the letter was quoted verbatim it was actually reference as a handwritten letter to so i don't i don't think there  confusion on that point and even if we sent that letter completely aside and you just look at mr seagal was sworn statement and the narrative is that that sort of arise from that statement versus his later  minute you can  which he alleges that he was in pain he was on medication he has evidence that he was in an accident before that and it seems highly unlikely that he would have been able to produce a two and a half page single it in front of them the petitioner was not given notice of the nature of that and as i mentioned before there were other arguments and steps that could have been taken to counter that had they known that it was not in fact a sworn statement and i think that's a