is an aspect of this prayer issue that was in the draft earlier argument and i think the earlier arguments really illustrate that this court case law has gotten to a really late and it's gotten to a really weird place this court expedited removal i don't understand why that is as i understand it the expedited removal was based on your client's fraudulent leave presenting somebody else's identification found that there are three holes required for that inspection right to incur that frank erne of problem so the st one in the order itself is fundamentally unfair we think either because the court action or because  admits to presenting somebody else's idea when they enter the country and even if the answer to that if if i am charged with speeding to the degree that they take away my driver's license and ten years later i'm convicted of driving without a license  i can't usually go back and relive again whether you should have taken away my driver's license and years ago isn't that what have i mean i think that's right but i do think that this isn't an origin you support this kind of reasoning that if i did have an obligation to develop the record right to pull out any facts that might support a woman like this and l p r twenty five cubans in the country or years old and had a one year old child any ground that m on behalf of the united states and i'd like to start by hitting on some of these really critical points so far the court has ranged so st with respect to the two thousand and twelve  argument the defendant sought admission or sought to come into the united states by committing an act of deliberate fraud by using another person's lawful permanent residency card so this defendant unlike the defendant and  was subject to removal for one committing the act of fraud and also for seeking admission without a valid entry document but by gauging but by engaging in fraud defendant was subject to expedited removal independent of any other  proceeding and that was that's what makes this case easily distinguishable from a troll who committed no fraud it presented his own card that he did not know was violent and it was only invalid because in a prior immigration proceeding that he was not present for an immigration judge incorrectly decided that he was he had been convicted in a of an aggravated felony or an aggravated felony and sever his lawful permanent residency status and that's just not what happened in this case this defendant presented another lawful permanent another person's awful permanent residence a car because she knew she had lost her status because she had been deported five times before moving on tethered to the to the other removal process the defendant makes the argument for the st time on appeal that there were due process violations with respect to the expedited removal and that's subject to a plain air review and there's just record no facts in the record to support that any due process violation occurred with the two thousand and twelve expedited removal the only declaration the defendant submitted this case is on page eighty six dollars of the record and in that declaration the defendant said but even just considering them briefly on the merits you know one of the arguments the defendant makes is that she was never advised of the possibility of withdrawing her application for admission but this court recognized as that the court of this court has never held that an immigration official has a duty to inform and the only end of that possibility and in withdrawing an application for admission with the other claim of a  process violation that has to do with record keeping requirements and again there's no factual basis to conclude that those records are keeping requirements were not followed and in fact the government has asked the court to take judicial notice of those very  forms those forms are authentic i understand that the defendant is asserting that they are challenges that and says hey they're not authentic there's no basis to conclude that those forms didn't come from the eyes general counsel and also that the defendant didn't sign those forms the forms on those signatures is the same for signature that appears on the record on page one hundred and forty six and maybe more important on this due process violation issue with the two thousand and twelve removal there was no clear and obvious prejudice this case is indistinguishable from the roswell for auto and garcia guns where this court found it was implausible that those two defendants who entered the united states by fraud who had prior findings of it in this ability in criminal records could have possibly withdrawn their applications for admission the defendant cites two cases in her reply but those kids were not on point in those cases it's true those those litigants did withdr applications for emissions but they had no prior findings of admissibility and no criminal records and so basically what those cases show is that a theoretical possibility that someone who is in a very different position than this defendant has this option available but it's just not those cases do not show a possibility that offending would tend conventions and five prior deportations who tried to enter the united states by committing as a liberal fraud would plausibly be eligible to withdraw the application permission moving on to the twenty million twelve thousand and five immigration judge removal proceedings there were no due process violations with either proceeding because you know as the courts or as the justices have stated  suggested rather with questions immigration judges are not required to be clairvoyant and immigration judge is not required to advise an alien a possible relief when there's no factual basis in the record to suggest that relief would be plausible any rule to the contrary basically require the immigration judge to approach things that are not raised in the record would invite maryla to happen quote would invite meritless applications for relief particularly sense an application may well extend deportation proceedings for years and quote and then that point makes a lot of sense with the duties and in particular where the immigration judge doesn't have the authority to adjudicated its us c i s and a lot of people who a lot of people in general are going to have been victims of crimes and so what the very kind of consequence that this court foresaw would certainly happen if the rule was that courts have to pro eligibility or any other form of relief that's not raised in the record and then moving on just briefly to prejudice this case is distinguishable from the two cases that the defendant cites on you know whether defendant was plausibly eligible already been concluded and finalized when she was a lawful permanent resident and so there was no really reason she needed to use the saw or would have even thought to apply for you'll be sent to one thousand and one or two thousand and five or you be must be helpful to authorities as the statute says quote investigating or prosecuting criminal activity end quote so there was no investigating or prosecuting going on in two hundred million one hundred and twenty thousand and fifty five that time the case had been thousand and ten and that's when that case that the defendant was a victim that that kind of outside case was prosecuted or concluded in two thousand and ten and so that makes sense but in that case that defendant actually applied for a u v century one thousand and thirteen and it was rejected and so they could take the time it makes a big difference another just two other distinguishing factors this defendant had prior integration history she didn't show up for immigration proceedings in twenty thousand twenty two and then by two thousand and five of course there were the prior deportations and then one final fact to distinguish this is the facts of the record just support plausibility and scenarios and surv as both defendants submitted declarations from immigration practitioners who considered the facts of the case and basically offer an opinion that of the plausible and wrote that in their experience you know similarly situated applicants have had visas granted there were no similar declarations or evidence of any kind to support the same type of finding in this case and pending any questions i'll submit i see my time's running running low