return and become a legal resident of this country unless but for the ground in this ability that issue today and immigration judge found that she was  when she testified that she was they are to be inside the car well again and from that one can reasonably infer that her presence normal normal my question is is very focused and it's why would in the in in view of that and in view of that concession of hers there's no question she knew that the alien was in the car shouldn't have been there and she had a choice herself either to go or to walk across the border and she said she was there just to be in the car why would a reasonable fact mind or be compelled to find somehow she would as the government still has a racist vision but i think it's just as likely that having her there not and not a professional in smuggler is just as likely that that would have drawn suspicion had they have had the look in her eyes or there's nothing in the record that says that they that they saw her she was not nervous or she was nervous but it's just as likely i think that her presence there would have drawn suspicion from the inspector the and with respect to the question of silence she did not say anything but nor does the record show that she was asking if there was no nothing in the form i two thirteen the government st she said her parole documents she didn't  documents can you tell that they were a family i normally i think you could have because you would because she was married to the driver and i think that i think that i think probably there's no indication the document that it is that she was the spouse of the was yes she didn't speak but at the same time there was no time when she would have been required to speak so what do you think she meant when she testified that when she was asked well how are you eating her how are you helping and i think at one point along the way she said grell my presence just being there i'm not sure i'm not sure i'm not sure that she said they were in there i think i think very well she said but it's did you provide that person well to be inside the car that's what she said and i guess i illegal alien in the vehicle but that's not the question here she knew that the illegal alien was in the car yes you're in she said she went along to be there and and i just remind the court that this grounded in this ability would be a permanent bar so therefore there is no waiver as in other contexts so if the court is to affirm the whole affirm of the decision of the there was an illegal alien in the trunk according to the petitioner herself she knew the night before that her husband's father in law was going to attempt the smuggling that's a r fifty fifty one seventy eight had to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt so this i mean these cases in terms of the burden are two ends of the spectrum now in anger the majority actually says at one point this is in a criminal case with the government having to bear the burden of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt now given the different different burden in the instance where the petitioner has to show that she clearly areas something could fall into and still be appropriate for our foreign aid as well the other the other option would be that the factual and legal questions raised on appeal are so insubstantial that a three member