once the immigration judge heard everything in my opinion the immigration judge then implied a strict liability application to this particular case finding that he did mislead the court or mislead the or that he had falsely a claim to be a u s citizen when his signature was on the call on the card mr sanchez has consistently said that he did not have knowledge of this and we have provided new evidence in the motion to reopen that that goes to that he goes to his mindset in two thousand and seven as to whether he actually had knowledge of this case and had knowledge of the fact that he had filed for a lot of what i'm saying and that he signed it by accident he act in under testimony says he doesn't know how he claims i did not register to vote i never knew i registered to vote this is the first time ever hearing about it and the immigration judge found him to be a credible witness when he made these statements and when asked is that your together on this on two things that he's doesn't link to that at all sure that well the first is with the voter registration card is that it was typewritten at the d m v so he did not hand fill out this card the two why talks about knowledge yes it anyone who falsely represents or is falsely represented in order for any purpose or benefit under this act and in this particular case before circuit benefit was you don't actually have to obtain the benefit which what you have to look at is there are puppets did you do this for a reason to achieve this benefit and that would imply willfulness and that would also imply some type of knowledge that you don't just mistaken something that you are falsely claiming to be and falsely misrepresenting he mistakenly did it negligently did it recklessly but what does the record we're saying we're saying that he did not have any knowledge of even doing it the first time that he was confronted was when he was on the stand at that particular time he was in the he was married to a u s citizen and was an illegal alien he had overstayed his we saw yesterday so he's clearly later changes sure and i don't think it even relates to and that's what we're getting to because if you look at it the immigration judge when the immigration judge gave his opinion in my opinion he applied a strict liability it does matter that in two thousand and seven in north carolina an undocumented person could not obtain a driver's license at that time in north carolina it we don't want people driving without insurance and without proper testing and so forth my question is in north carolina in two thousand and seven couldn't under the minute a person nevertheless despite the lack of that share obtain a driver's like in my understanding they could with paper with a valid passport so a passport from mexico would be sufficient to get you a driver's license and welcome better is my understanding that is not true today with permission he could get a driver's license in the state of north carolina that is my understanding yes ron and so he didn't have to claim us citizenship it wanted to get a driver's like exam and he didn't have to register last week so i sort of had a fresh in my memory lots of papers lots of sort of odd things going on things pushed at him he signs this is a computer generated document and it's really weird because the form oh you know us citizen somebody check yes yes that's a computer check yes and then the next question is are you over eighteen and somebody process but i completely agree and as far as he thought it out he does not remember he just knows that he did not fill out anything who filled who with these x s in the box is computer generated except me is computer generated so he typed it in from says he would be eighteen years he will not be eighteen years of age on or before election day ok yes but then right above the signature he says i will be eighteen years of age i dictated the next general elect so there's a total internal contradiction in the docket what evidence is there in the record of his language issues inability to read writing it time that at the time indeed the administrative record there is not you have to go back to the initial he came to the united states in two thousand and five and then he lived in new jersey for two years in a in any rosier brazilian community so everything they spoke at that time was portuguese  was the person was found not to be credible and there was evidence that was blatant that the person knew absolutely that they were claiming to be a u s citizen in this particular case he was found to be credible and the board of immigration appeals actually says he testified think in my opinion that he was found to be a credible witness but that the immigration judge applied it will a strict liability that that looks like your signature is on a voter registration card suit therefore i'm finding that you falsely claimed to be a us citizen where i think you have to go back to what was the intent because the word falsely is an adverb representing a very active verb course the alternative interpretation is when he says i find it incredible what that's why i feel that that the evidence is material well put but here's my problem maybe you can address it will ruling your favor and send it back what's going to be different at this time his credit his testimony was found credible and the new evidence goes exactly to what his intent was that time do you are you prepared to say the record doesn't support that finding if we were to send it back i the record supports that it looks like his signature and he even acknowledges it looks like my signature but only on the question of his knowledge are you prepared to argue that the record does not support a finding that he information that was put there has to be material we would ask that state that no analysis of whether he had knowledge was ever not that a strict liability was applied in this particular case because the no i he is not so to whether someone threw it away whether it got delivered to him or not but the same address this is if it is the same address i notice he came in and nineteen ninety six and he lived up  no not based on the record unfortunately the petitioner did not appeal his decision to the board of immigration appeals and no transcript was created were generally known who typed in the information that appeared on this card no it does but it also gave them a warning for consequences of signing a document ruling that the contents are false i guess misquote what i'm concerned about here is that there's a document where he says i will be eighteen years of age before the election and then another part of the document says i want and signs it clearly something is going on here true thing is wrong true and an accident so natural explanation for that nonetheless they testified credible but it's not all me it means that the petitioner generally testified credibly but the immigration judge did have problems with his claim that he did not know his signed the document  really together that goes right to the heart and that's what this whole thing is about how much you find that he testified credibly if you didn't accept his argument or his position that he could  but still have questions about a certain part of the person's test right but if that part is the most material part yeah that is true and is much easier if i say he was lying about the one thing that makes all the difference in the case it says nevertheless he's credible do we need to ask him to clarify why the immigration judge went on to look at the merits of the evidence that was presented before it so although he may not have made a decision and told him about his credibility at that time address in the record the board confirms that there were additional communications meow to him back in two thousand and seven and two thousand and twelve and reasonable person would not believe that those communications were related to the communication that submitted to support his claim or motion to reopen here and the fact that the petitioner signed this particular voter registration card knowing that he was not a citizen of the united states you know under penalty of perjury being that and so we all understand the human reluctance to say to somebody or about somebody i don't believe you to say nothing of your life sure of  very carefully right in the courage and maybe we should require him to demonstrate that kerchief that's what it is to say on the record in writing in his opinion signed them i know i'm signing them but i don't have a clue as to what i sign you're saying that's enough for a felony but based on the application of your application it clearly is i mean it's warning you and you don't do it if you don't you're applying skidmore deference to a voter registration application found at the absence of a warning on the application also was immaterial because it didn't because it didn't have to be made knowingly or will this activity the right some kind of said i don't really understand english very well to the person who was helping him fill out this if somebody was helping him we don't even know what if he had made it known that he did not have a very good  six see little to lie falsely claiming citizenship again so not not the one above it talks about frogger willfulness representation just the one that says any alien who falsely represents you goes up to the counter and says i can't really read write english and they say you know they start talking to him and he signs a firm you're saying is violated step two yes it board in two thousand and thirteen actually had an  came before them want to put a registration application and said she spoke and read english poorly at the time she registered to vote and only realized that she had registered when she was criminally charged and asserts that she had not voted and that was her his address either of or that said you didn't respond well to this cheney lose that he didn't have knowledge back at that time i mean we're not are we talking about a guy who had been in the united states eleven years when he formally there was the denial of the motion to reopen and this judge devices formally technically that's what's before us yet but it's not clear to me what this record would look like any differently if in fact the motion to reopen had been granted and then there was an appeal in other words from what i can tell both the i j a and the board considered the motion to reopen on the merits they explained yes they did that they consider all the new quote unquote new evidence if out determining whether or not evidence with you  sixty two we keep using the word false claim that is not the plain language false claim is a noun that is something that's false it is anyone who falsely represented in order to obtain a benefit and that's why we're arguing there had to be knowledge in this particular case and we're stating that this new evidence goes to the very heart of that it goes to the issue how did he have knowledge of this one it shows that he didn't vote because that was that was part of the record that pulled he didn't vote it also shows that he did not receive remembers was returned and we keep saying he received it that the actual information says that the mill could have been returned to the board of elections which also has the  look in the context of he was found to be credible by the immigration judge and he said i did not register to vote we now take this new evidence and contest with those  can't and that as soon as he got this letter from the board of elections he went down there and removed himself from the voter registration and he's already been to court he had already been to court but our what we are stating is that he did not have not when he went to court that's the not do an analysis as to whether it's material he basically said you signed the card under penalty of perjury therefore you claim to be a united states citizen and it did not even address to whether this is material whether he did time the claim to be a u s citizen but again and now i'm using the term want to make it clear that the it needs to be and it should have been analyzed by the immigration judge and by board of immigration appeals as that it was a falsely when presented