supreme court i'm just not sure we have any authority to look into this and i think the supreme court has been very very clear about beginning with justice kennedy's opinion in indiana and then going on through the adoption of justice kennedy's opinion  the consul needs to do this is fight the relevant provision and here they did more but i honestly feel i'd be to be setting the facts of the case and what the consul did or didn't do all whatever and because i think the supreme court realizes that granting or denial of visas at the d n case or whether we look at the mandela case all the client thinks all work wherever you or whether we look at the other circuit cases where the th circuit just unless the government is talking about basically saying to kids who are not taking those tests they should have the government think they should have taken it anyway and unless if the woman thinks that they have the right to test result is more important in terms of showing somebody is the date of birth and the person's date of birth thing and i list the government things that serially on does not have the right to govern itself and to decide which government agencies to issue their  else i mean in terms of hospital records in terms of even money and transcript of my abilities previous years everything has been provided and every single thing review the adequacy of documentation and we don't have the authority to make credibility findings with respect to these applications we don't have that authority the district court doesn't have started that authority the supreme court has made clear that we don't have the authority congress has not passed a statute that would give a one million abroad or to challenge the denial of a visual of these i think if we started down the road of judicial review we would be brought government has not provided anything on the record to the contrary to what you have provided on that basis they cannot even a certain supposition to begin with let alone the fact that the are even considering that to be material fact interview the still under twenty months at the time up occasionally a little thirty so there is no material facts here but sliver by the own admission and that these and they're not even providing anything at all and the fact that they're trying to just make this who you look forward to hearing from you thank you very much your honor talon lazarou from the u s attorney's office in baltimore for the at least i'll try to be brief i want to start with a comment that opposing counsel made multiple times during her opening argument that the government bears a burden by clear and convincing evidence now the appellant's devote pages of their opening brief to citing cases none of which are consular non review ability cases their asylum cases their neat de naturalization cases their deportation cases and in those contexts the government does bear a burden but that burden is in a political here to cases like the one at bar which involves a visa applicant that's applying from abroad in situations like ours eight us c one thousand three hundred and sixty one dollars provides that it's not the government's burden of proof it's the visa applicants burden of proof and if they fail to establish to the satisfaction of the consular officer and entitlement to a visa then no title men should issue and again that's very different from other contexts for instance the deportation context where by regulation the government does bear a burden of proving to portability by clear and convincing evidence so the court should reject appellants attempt to graft an analysis from different contexts to this context to which the consular non reviewab doctrine applies the only bird in the government has is to provide a facially legitimate and bona fide reason for the denial and in that as the court has pointed out we look at justice kennedy's controlling opinion which has now been adopted by the full statutory language and we think the analysis really can end there on that prong of the analysis because there are any number of circuit level decisions some of which involve the very same inadmissibility statute at issue in our case that have considered justice kennedy's opinion in the context of a consular non review ability application and have held that where the consular officer cited a valid inadmissibility statute that's where the analysis ends but b applicable statute from our perspective and i don't understand there to be a challenge from the other perspective on on that point either the the the analysis can and there but it actually doesn't have to end there because in this case the government actually did much more than then reference the statute there have been search some cases that we think perhaps incorrectly have seized on some language in justice kennedy's opinion and they've asked well is there a facial connection between the invisibility statute referenced and and the facts of a particular case and in this case it's very it's quite simple to to find that facial connection just by looking at just a few brief counsel that the visa application is being denied finally but because the bindy misrepresented her age and presented a false passport so this process was one that started with the consular officer questioning of these claims about her age and ended with an explanation that the visa was being denied because she lied about her age that certainly bears a facial connection to the reference to an invisibility statute which is fraud which is for fraud or material misrepresentation so to the extent that something more is required which we don't think it is we have that additional facial connection in this case and i would also point out that we would actually also  muster under justice briar's dissent and in which stated that one of the ways the government could satisfy its burden is to is to to give the factual basis for the government's decision here we have the factual basis thousand and eighteen opinion in zang of and i think is this court is recognized now with with the benefit of whole i e now recognizing that justice kennedy's opinion was the controlling opinion and the court in hawaii recognized that indeed when justice kennedy noted that the government need to provide only a statutory citation to a fisa denial and didn't limit it to and didn't limit it to terrorism cases and i do not shy away from a not because you got a subpar challenging it is and how much how difficult it is and there might be sometimes a st time for everything so you don't want to be at the same time but the government is arguing here is you for your argument we appreciate that and we appreciate mr allows arose argument as i mentioned in the previous case it is disappointing that we can't come down and shake your hand and thank you in person but we do appreciate it