i see that at the time of the interview which is approximately eighteen hours later my client testified that yes she knew her cousin was one document and they've known each other for twenty years they were both approximately twenty two years of age and  s fact is that the period before she went to the ford or that was not in her mind well i guess you know clearly this was exceedingly bad judgment on the part of your client  probably had a very good chance of becoming being able to state where she's got children you know she's got every sympathetic factor that that one could look at but you know how do we get around the things that she said regarding her knowledge and if we apply the the standards of review that we're required to do if that's what you really need to address i mean i don't i think the bottom line sadly your client made a very bad judgment in terms of to go down to whatever the and drink or do whatever and come back and you know do something like this but you know how you know you're you've got all the sympathy going for you but unfortunately there's a lot a lot or a lot you know how you know talk i mean we have to approach it that way i mean don't you know don't think that we're not aware of that that by the same token you know we're judges to let's talk about the knowledge that night she didn't even want to go to p one she was on the way there she was putting on her makeup the once the discotheque she had more to drink at some point the girls wanted to go home but that regrettable thing is that she grabbed the keys this is a group of girls look at it's what she knew and what her actions were right and what is the evidence on that for actually was she was sharing like the petitioner in topical drive responsibilities win i think i hear you saying that it would not be illegal for someone to knowingly drive an illegal alien to the border knowing that that illegal alien is going to try to make a false caught they know they were heading back to the united states i mean i don't understand the distinction you're making they know they're driving to the border and they know and she knows that her cousin is in the car and she knows that they're going to be at the border expection station sort of like when you talk to your child and he say are you sorry are you sorry you got caught she didn't intend to get caught but we have to also look at i mean did you know it was the driving of the political acted she now that this person didn't have the documents that she still go hinking about it there was no intent there was no encouragement she wasn't nervous at the border she wasn't shaking her she was not averting her eyes there was no evidence of this she wanted to drive home and s situation she wanted to drive home and if she was drunk and if she did tell someone that those are consequences as well i mean it's a sad situation but your client does have to take some responsibility here in terms of her own very  please the court my name is jennifer lightbody and i represent respondent substantial evidence supports the immigration judge a determination that petitioner hernandez knowingly assisted aided and abetted the attempted entry of two illions into the united states a violation of  owner and operator of the vehicle and she hasn't disputed that if she transported the aliens or attempted to into the united states page one or two of the record in page two eighteen even if the court were not persuaded that the fact that she was the driver an owner of the vehicle in addition to that she did go out to the immigration officer and say oh my cousin left her papers at home in fact she told the officer that if she had an i five fifty one in l p r card not that she w necessarily just trying to adjust your status that she had a green card at home so if this court requires an affirmative act not only was she driving not only was she was it her car but she also went to the immigration officer  can't show that it was alien smuggling well immigration officer beauty at page one twenty four of the record said in his experience it's normal for an alien smugglers to take the smugly to mexico and bring the smugly back in addition she says why w in toxic hated i didn't know what i was doing well the immigration office immigration judge found that much credibility the alien was not credible when she said she was too drunk and in addition we decided in twenty eight chain letter that knowingly is a general intent crime intoxication is not a defense of that and it shouldn't be here in addition the immigration judge found that the two officers one who observed her for forty five hours and the other who interviewed her said she wasn't intoxicated those officers rather said she wasn't intoxicated at page one sixteen one thirty one sixty four and one sixty nine of the record immigration judge found that those officers were credible just says do you know were asian vulnerability she was unable to in the requisite intent however the immigration judge looking at the evidence in particular the doctor's report said that the doctor didn't find that hernandez lacked the ability to form intent and he was not persuaded that the person is a person who is easily demonstrate that she actually track that the government doesn't need to show the actual transportation here or there was actual transportation and unlike in the sixth or case where the parties were sharing expenses sharing the van