in this matter has been trying to apply for residency in the united states she's been applying trying to apply for almost ten years at the same time the government of the united states has been trying to remove her from the same issue that we were focused on today which is that she participated in the two thousand and four election here in minnesota petitioner maintains that she has presented a viable defense to her voting in two thousand and four that she has proven charges mother is much as in establishing her admissibility the the defense of entrapment by a scuffle it is uncontested based on her credible testimony as the agency founder credible that she received a poster postal verification card in the mail unsolicited by her that when she applied for her license she somehow got into the state system the state of minnesota system based on a license application that does not represent that she choose represented herself as anything other than a canadian with a pending immigration application she received her license on august twenty fourth two thousand and four postal verification card arrive sometime after that the election was less than ninety days later petitioner appeared at the at the polling place as a den of fide on the roster card or the voter verification card and follow the instructions given to or the government's case entirely on the existence of a polling roster page their argument seems to be that trying to extrapolate from cuts not entirely clear to me even after all this time that this the mere existence of this polling roster page with a four line certification at the top and small font in itself meant that she represented that herself to be eligible to vote as users as a citizen of the time that she was voting the doing when sending her the card and she had no reason to question their judgment and so the question becomes who goes to the very issue was her reliance reasonable the card a specific to her it's mail to her home gives her unique number so it is very precise in its nature the one thing that's missing from this card which is ironic that it's not on the card but it's on the polling roster page is any warnings about capacity of a verifying again that you're only eligible to vote if you meet certain conditions and so if you look at the license application itself and actually has a verification box then ask that basically two basic questions are you a citizen yes and if you check then you proceed to the next question do you wish to register to vote based on all these other conditions if the roster page itself had a similar yes or no dynamic then i think i got argument would be if you talk to that point she would have been alerted to the actual inquiring of herself should i of the petitioner excuse me and no way actually ever concedes that she signed she frankly doesn't recall if she did or not she never testified for example or off an affidavit acknowledging that she signed it the government itself does not not present the actual polling roster page by the time that anyone actually raises the issue in the state of minnesota had long destroyed it and so there the government's argument is premised on the operation of government itself saying that the state of minnesota in following some procedures would more likely than not have actually required her to sign this but isn't there still a factual finding by the district court that she knew she was voting on it it's a finding based solely on the existence of the formula and the fact that if she had signed the for is the whole premise of the entrapment by a stop of defense is when the hand of government sends a person in a certain direction and a albeit an error that at some point then that person is allowed to rely on that the really the question before the courts in which i would p proffer that the board of immigration appeals fail to actually analyze as to what extent does a subsequent communication or notice in this case have to have any measure of strength to resist the initial communication in other words an object seems to me there's a difference between a registration and the legal ability legal authorization to vote under federal law i couldn't if that would be the case your honor i understand why you're asking the question if there was a distinction between the state law on the federal law regarding the capacity vote but when this case there simply mirrors of each other eighteen years old and citizenship  i think that at that point it's it's petitioner's position that the act of sending the card itself is communicating to petition or that she is authorized to vote because otherwise why would the state have sent in the first place  so she has no reason to question the judgment of the state at that point it is the superior actor and aware of its own electoral process and you know this is in conjunction at the same time she's establishing residency in the state of minnesota you know she th occurring contemporaneous with the fact that she's receiving a license relative to the same period so this guy you know so her life has been transitioning to minnesota in a very relatively short period she's not a position or it i don't think it's reasonable to ask if someone's and so to the extent that the government has invited her to be to participate in this process i'll be in error it does not mean that her reliance on that invitation is weak in the way it doesn't call upon her to suddenly question the other will of the judgment of the state actor who censor this without provocation you know in the cases that basically the parties have been quibbling over the two cases out of the seventh circuit that very dynamic is appearing in the case favorable to the petitioner the registration card appeared now there was an exchange at some point the d m v regarding that but this case in this case she did there was no exchange there was no communication soliciting or trying to establish voter eligibility the state just told her you're eligible i said you were the car  and not at the same time saying by the way make sure that you actually are there is no warning on that sets the actual roster page in itself as it relates as a warning that would cut off communication to tiredly in effect it's shared by ten other people and has at least four pieces of personal information relative to each individual no person it is reasonably going to stand over this form and read all the fine print during the middle of an election when someone else's name date of birth and their used up my primary time so i like to reserve the wreath the rest for everybody thank you her overstay charge and second based on the first it becomes her burden to show that she is not in admissible in order to adjust her status and mr nasty has not met that burden because she voted unlawfully in the november two thousand and four election thirty point is that her claim of entrapment by a stock was unavailing because her reliance on the erroneous voting registration card was not reasonable in order to adjust her status and she did not establish that as the immigration judge and the board found she violated three voting statutes article seven section one of the minnesota  constitution eighteen us code six eleven and the minnesota statute section two a one point zero one four so she has not established she's not in establish that she has to show the government that there was a permanent misconduct by the government and in this case it shows that when the department of vehicle services mailed her the frustration card that was a mistake that actually tracks the language that appears in the in the driver's license application and she says that she didn't write her she was a russian you know just like everybody she was in a hurry her mother was crawling but she wasn't like  was a canadian citizen that was voting and have no objection in the united states and she's not in the same position there so she says that she doesn't remember whether or not she signed it but again i go to the burden of proof in this case she's got to show that actually proceedings were suspended more as she attempted to kid justice titus through the citizen immigration services and then she was involved in her vehicle accident and she had from the brain injury so she actually didn't have to testify to that circumstances the immigration judge recently found that it would be inconceivable that this was just completely just disregarded had some to do with the fact that her original adjustment application to her husband there was a there was a finding of fraud somewhere and i had some to do with it but i can't speak exactly to why it was denied in this case it was opinions what's your position the seventh circuit sent it back down because the immigration judge and the board said that it didn't even apply in immigration cases and that it only applied in criminal cases so we're not contesting that it doesn't apply in this case but we're saying that based on the reach that charge of evolving because she had resolved the under other charge of running off voting so she didn't see the need to proceed further the government's first point though regarding why are we challenging the move billet component of even meet the threshold of evidence for parts of the net of evidence to defeat the charge removed so we certainly wouldn't be able to meet the higher burden of proving this ability so there's a hole in that logic if we don't challenge one we are opening to on the other the other issue that comes up that's often overlooked in these proceedings is that it's one thing to have a charge or removal based on an overstay that is not for close someone from coming back to united states in the future their prospects of returning the united states and visiting the friends that you have made in the equations as you've made over the eighteen years you've been living in united states or in this case sixteen years this is final there is no waiver there is no forgiveness once she's gone she's gone so from her standpoint it is worth fighting the issue whether she was she removed on this basis in addition to overstay now the government you know also points out it brings up the fitzpatrick case  in the bound by your signature reference the problem with that reference is that reference is actually specific to the license application was that that person had was trying to make some argument i believe actually in the commodity case not the fitzpatrick making a reference that that person was didn't really understand what they were signing were not making that argument were making argued that she was even aware she was signing the certification because it is so small put at the top of a page on a document that she can't control she can't handle it it's a state actors government it's a government document for the time of the election the electoral staff is going to manage that document and it's going to the point that her earlier it's going to contain the information of ten different people someone's not going to actually have anough off the wording of the document to then have time to study it and make hay of it that's quite different than the license application now in the license application itself the government says that she you know raise possibility that she knew what she was checking or that she had testified scuse me regarding citizenship but she knew she wasn't a citizen but if you look at the license application itself once she once you realize wait a minute citizen i don't i don't go there there's nothing that actually stablish is no record there's no testimony word mission that she even bother to read any further because she knew that part of the application didn't apply the work the first part is verify that you ever had a been contested that i know the secretary of state's record reference of possible registration in two thousand and six but i do believe that's reflective of her changing your address and really just updating of information between the department of motor vehicle services and secretary there's often a going back and forth of these transactions and so i think your car the your honor for in this court for considering this argument it's very important to the petitioner and she's very thankful that you've given an opportunity to her today thank