next case on the docket is philips versus l didn't notice the morning i meant to say this for the other folks i think there's a button on your right hand side there and if you press that that podium should go oh no there you go a i'm here on behalf of the appellate my client the felon phillips has a constitutionally protected interest in pursuing her application for naturalization however due to the actions of us yes our rights have been severely violated a federal many federal courts in the past have done to remain in this case to the district court and order them to grant miss phillips application not pro talk miss phillips is a long time lawful permanent resident she submitted an application for naturalization in one nine hundred ninety seven and she met all of the criteria for naturalization as enumerated eight u s c one four two seven she appeared for interview she passed all the examinations and submitted all the requested documentation nevertheless u s c s erroneous seems that the story seems to be that she went back couple of times with the birth certificate after the she got the request it appears at the time she had not given them the birth certificate she went back to give it to him a couple of times  examination the r o p i n s was clearly in possession of a birth certificate prior to issuing requests for evidence and you cite pages fifty six fifty seven and one of the which are copies of the birth certificate but there is there any indication  that there's like a date stamp on it or something to show that she actually did show up with it and right after she got the notice move forward on your own unfortunately she was on represented at the time as is my practice if i was represented at the time i was made a cover letter and had  at that time however she has no additional she has no evidence you submitted it after her interview however we would posit to the court that the burst of it must have been in the file because the only application submitted after her naturalization was additionally our prior applications would have included her birth certificate so what's your what's your perspective on her how how would you have find work review the record and conclude that the administrat position i think that there's really two there's the n three three six and the mandamus action i think that really breaks down the administrative acts it's our claim that if this court sees fit we would ask it to be remitted for the application to be granted on pro tunker on the deadline for the mandamus should be told and that clear the april twenty eighth two thousand she did get a letter saying we don't have your birth certificate still and you have thirty days in which to appeal so as of that time whether we're denying it you have thirty days in which to file these requests for a hearing she didn't do it right that is correct but did she try to do anything after that for the ten years she had gone back to u s a s and made additional ingres and i  know that the biggest problem for this court is that there's no paper in the file regarding those inquiries currently there is an invalid passes them whereby if someone goes to us yes and makes it an inquiry that they are given a record but it's my understanding of the time there may not have been any sort of in fact it stopped at some point after she was she's told that she's going to get it sharing in date she doesn't get a swearing in day she goes back she keeps going back what is the contention opposition is their client kept going back and that it's a perfect issue for an amended petition or maybe even possibly a deposition between the parties to further because in all honesty i'm not the person went back to you a c i s and i can only relate to the information on my client as told me  i think it's a better practice to have the actual person who went back to us is make those statements when under oath would trigger renewed interest and become uses what happened was her her son her son was ordered to move in the united states and it was prior to that or removal that she contacted me because if she if if you were c i s it simply looked in there violence in the birth certificate harmer she would have been naturalized prior to her son's eighteenth birthday and then her son would have the right of citizenship automatically and as a practical matter i mean any you keep saying not protest but she's not a citizen until she's sworn in as a citizen right it's our contention that dish accord our federal court has the ability to in in watch of the supreme court said that a federal court has the ability to grant citizenship for constitutional violations including violations of the due process clause and i think this is the matter here that it's unfair for a governmental agency to get naturalized through the provisions set forth in the naturalization statutes and those provisions also have a process for review of denial of naturalization applications and ultimately a point here provide specifically that at this record only has jurisdiction if a hearing was held before an immigration officer on the naturalization application and the implementing regulations related to that statute provide that if there's a denial of the nationalization application then the individual has thirty days in which to apply for such he  the contention is whether the government is disputing that or not is that that birth certificate was already in the hands of the agency that water the contention made by petition right right first it's not clear that it was for the reasons that the court pointed out there's no date stamps any time so we don't even know when that got into the record but and this is an important point i think just in terms of the fairness of  all the time and if you know something interesting in the complaint that i just picked up because first it was a lot of flooding these areas second of all this is a lot of kind of secondary and tertiary documentation that people have even if they're being straight to supply and and the government wants more if you notice even petitioner position is counsel and she and he's on top of the case and a very excellent attorney got it wrong and looking at the requirements it's not entirely clear to me that those were in that could you could you address your view as to why they were and why it was appropriate not to treat it as a missionary of you and just again that claim wasn't addressed in the denial because it wasn't it wasn't made in the end three three six so that was one of the claims that the position me that it was that it was already in the second claim is that even if it wasn't it wasn't needed so it was a request that no no appropriate basis in terms of request of documentation again that's request appropriate regulation which is eighty four three thirty six point to see more one that references one of those people in five a right you have to meet the standards for documentation to establish your claim remember the only thing we're looking at is the claim relieved in her effort she said i tried i tried to give this person again and i did and and so the government said ok show us some documents show those documentation related to that effort and so much consistently and it's one of the consistent themes of this year and it is a fourteen years have gone by and patricia didn't bring anything not a single document to show of her efforts now she can't she can't name a name of the individual that she mentioned a whole host of individuals and i would point out that that she was focused on what was going on because she about trying to get a receipt and i couldn't get a receipt so this is someone who is aware of the importance of that she can get a name and there are other things too if you noticed she talks about these just little things that pick up but there are so many other things that want to look at but it's a little bit confusing because my client was a green card holder she must have supplied her burst of good order to receive her green card additionally there was some confusion as to  the actual birth certificate that was in the r o p whether it was considered authentic and it's on page one zero nine of the administrative record and one which page one thirty three and this document set is stand by the american embassy in kingston jamaica so i've never been trained as a member of the us yesterday i guess but i would assume that once a birth certificate has been stamped by an american embassy abroad they would defeat any claims to raise client she she went to as i said before she went to immigration and she was told that and she believed that her naturalization aunt was forthcoming however she did not meet the original thirty day deadline  it's also our position that in the court cases in young and martina's they said that there is no waiver of their of the filing of the n three three six when it has not been filed meaning you can skip over the n three three six and go to mandamus directly so it's our position that even if a late filed at three three six it's better late than never and the previous court cases merely said that you still have to file in and three three six you can't go directly to the mandaeans but there is at least through supreme court jurisprudence suggestion that administrative records of appeals or questioning of them has to be done in a timely fashion and we're stuck with fourteen years right we would it's our position that that there is that contention however when it comes to constitutional rights such as citizenship there is more leniency that is involved especially in the supreme court case of wong and other supreme court cases saying that what is a fundamental due process rights edge is citizenship that hopefully the rules are a little bit looser finally we believe that we page twenty three of the supplemental essay page twenty three in page eight of the administrative record what do you say you raise there we raise the issue regarding the birth certificate it states in there that she did deliver the birth certificate and that that will we will pass to the court that would preserve her argument