foul you just made a statement months ago that the law is the law are we cannot make it different for different people and that's a key principle in this case to two main issues that why aren't we required to hold that the applicant received this warning about frivolous ness that the regulations require because it's written right on the one way of looking at the new conveyance of the warning however congress and all its wisdom wrote the law and outlaw a requirement that at the time of the apple application with the warning was retching him and his plan which at the time of the application and they don't know that there are no indication of that in the record what about what about page one fifty four in the transcript where the judge says if he wants me to consider with considering the if you want me to continue with considering the asylum application i'm going to make a frivolous filing this is a warning which i believe was properly explained to you before but i'm going to explain it to you again because of the severe consequences of this if you knowingly file a frivolous application for asylum you will be barred forever from receiving any benefit then the judge turns to the interpreter and says i want you to translate that for us under the immigration naturalization section two zero a small letter to the number four capital of the immigration and nationality act at the time of the filing of an application for asylum the attorney general shall advise the alien factual at the time of filing of than application for asylum the regulations repeat this warning and that requirement and this court recently rule november of two thousand and three in the case fire an f a our age versus ashcraft this is case number zero two seven zero two five through exactly the same circumstances with the same immigration judge that the frivolous warning cannot be given in the middle or at the end of the hearing why because that is one of the space gods that congress wrote into the he's for the court and i thought that the way the attorney general gave the warning at the time of filing was by printing it on the asylum application and we have no indication they're contemplating raising their children in the united states his parents are immigrating to the united states within one month his part of his family is here in the united states finding precludes this man from ever living lawfully in the united states he must be reported he could never come back justice cries out that you at least vacate that part of the judge's order because it is it is illogical it is wrong and violates the law regulations and your rules that's what i heard you say remarks to the substantive issue of whether he told an entirely different story in greece he may well have done that we do not object to the  government bringing in impeachable evidence at the end of the trial that the government's right that's what trials are for that is what evidence is for what we object to and what the attorney  and the judge later said i'll give you five minutes i'll give you five minutes to review with your client what was your going to respond to all of this massive impeachable evidence but he didn't know before i forget exactly where  i picked up on the record that the fact that he tells a different story and creates with no surprise that may well be in the government knowing right well we're not just viewed in those back at all what we are saying is process rights to a full and fair hearing so now we can argue about the ego what happens and so many jury trials somebody tells a story there's some devastating impeachment they might like a two week in the united states you know that is that's not right i mean that is right it's not because the evidence only came to light about from what i can gather ten or fifteen minutes before the judge ren my impression but i can't really show you where i said what and reading for the record i thought you agreed earlier there the fact that he had told them not that the piece of paper but the fact that he is held a different story and please was common ground coming into this hearing it was not  aware that the government knew about it and this is why they were refusing the asylum or one of the reasons why yes ok you know if he's aware of his problem with the changing stories i don't see how he can be deny due process i guess we come from different context i come from a jury trial context and you from an immigration law administrative hearing context you hope that the jury will be surprised and in impeachment it's nevertheless not likely to be news to the person a change the story well if i'm not mistaken the ninth circuit has held time and time again  reverse tony what decisions that petition must be granted a meaningful and reasonable opportunity to explain the discrepancies and inconsistency is in the record and i don't thank you counsel thank you many would argue that just putting in that notice in an english applique am just trying to figure your argument is that in general an adequate notice is putting it on a piece of paper that he signs in english  those are the two possibilities right yes ok so which one is that or both or what i'm having trouble i'm sorry which one is it or both or what another was what little you were lying and that's all i wanted to both you and so you were lying on the english language notice in the application  as being sufficient why aren't we how we can distinguish the next case in which there is a credibility and adverse credibility heinie why isn't that also our application argument before we submit the case it looks to me as though it's probably an application coming for a change of status on account of the marriage and  to the result then day yesterday and withdraw all of the appeal in order to avoid having us decide went way past time