at the time that they were married and a couple couples conduct before and after the marriage is relevant to such an inquiry under this court's case in sugar nova versus holder now  exchange for american car per the evidence that the couple traveled together to united travel to the united states separately which is separate cities and separate states and never lived together that's not in dispute fo conflicting and inconsistent testimony from both regarding whether they ever visited one another whether petitioners family ever paid the ex husband any money before or after the marriage bit conflicting information regarding whether they ever lived as husband and wife he asked an open ended question about whether the couple while they were in nigeria had ever slept in the same bed together and to which the wrist petitioner's ex husband said no we never and then he said never what had sex and he said no we never had sex so there's no you know there's there shouldn't be any confusion about what that meant six there was and most importantly there is zero documentary evidence of this couple ever having established a life together and you know maybe it's ten years but there should be something property records you know drawing a blank on what property records affidavits from family and friends to lety bills joint bank accounts tax returns something establishing an intent by the couple to establish a life together as a married couple once they're in the united states both testified in fact that they never saw each other his nd wife that he had intended to marry all along with him he had a child and so under these circumstances the record evidence supports the agency's decision certainly does not compel a contrary result now with respect to contention that her ex husband's testimony it was obtained under duress if you look at the actual transcript of the interview which petitioner herself submitted to the immigration judge the evidence from that transcript just does not bear out these arguments there is no threat of deportation in fact the officer in multiple instances make sure that distress ex husband is aware of the fact that he's not putting him under arrest he doesn't even have the authority to approve or deny the application the most you can do he says multiple occasions is make a recommendation and the fact is he tells him the more open and forthcoming you are with me the sooner you stop l but less time it will take to process your application that's all he says and so the effort of questioning him if he knows he came into the interview they already had documentary evidence suggesting that this was not a bona fide marriage if the purpose of the fraud interview is to find out what's going on and the more an applicant is invasive and doesn't want to answer question or stammers than the more an officer is going to press for that information that he needs and what he says to destress ex husband is absolutely true that the more you want the more it's going to take longer to process the naturalization application and so process any further visas that he wants to file on behalf of his current wife and son now the reason why you might get a different result the issue with respect to his naturalisation was whether or not he's lying to an officer or he's ever lied on and naturalization application of an applicant to specifically asked whether two different places whether you about ever aided and somebody coming to the united states illegally and whether you've ever lied to an officer of import or are to an immigration officer it's likely that it's because there is evidence that both of those questions were answered correctly that would indicate that would prompt a trot investigation that doesn't but that goes to whether he's eligible for naturalization it wouldn't necessarily mean that he's removable as someone who perhaps you are an immigrant visa by fraud or misrepresentation nor would it indicate that his subsequent so that's just if i can just clear out why you know if there's any confusion or are concerned about the facts and sisters ex husband didn't get removed part of contact she is removable for her contact because ex husband in fact received citizenship that's what i was trying to explain there are two different issues it's possible that he did not receive citizenship but that in of itself wouldn't make him removable and it wouldn't make the petitions for his subsequent  proceedings were terminated which means that he's probably no longer i mean he's it's possible and i think this is off the record outside the record and you know it's possible that he's retained his permanent residency and is just you know living like i don't i don't have to you know when whether they visited one another in the united states whether there was money exchanged you know the petition was very clear on her brother having given her ex husband money on two different occasions and he's you know recanted his testimony that he received anything and you know her statement that she had that she had gone out to california for one month and tried to work things out and then came back and he contradicted that and said no you never she never came to