behavior and she's proved to be a hard working engaging member of her community in spite of all this however she is in jeopardy of losing her only or permanent resident status and being removed from the us based on the government's allegation that she's an alien smuggler but was there any real dispute about that yes there there is a dispute about that you even your briefer citing the facts seems to acknowledge that she brought somebody and using her daughter's birth certificate that wasn't her daughter birth certificate and the person isn't your daughter how can you escape the inference and how should we pretend that the immigration judge has to escape the inference that she knew it wasn't her daughter and knew what she was doing i think there  under which she offered if she had an opportunity to offer them none of which she offered so what other inference is possible she actually didn't have an opportunity to offer that and that's one of the arguments that we have in this opportunity to testify and either because after the immigration judge said i don't need to hear from her on the motion to suppress he asked us that and in light of what i've heard from some officer minds has i'm going to find i'm going to find that that she  now did she would she have testified that she didn't know that this girl was not her daughter i don't believe that she would have testified that that's however you you have to also look at the  that perhaps i thought i would bring her in anyway i think perhaps perhaps perhaps she believed that the minor one is able to come over and the border legally but then any missed the filing date it is court finds that it you know doesn't have has have jurisdiction and then we submit that the proper remedy and is to have the immigration judge reus you as you have a new thirty day time period for f my name is jennifer is now on behalf of the respondent alberto gonzales there are a number of issues in this case relating to the court stressed action over the petition for review in its entirety and its jurisdiction relating to the various issues raised by petitioner in her sort of a separate side of the failure to exhaust requirement it's understated that when mr biased as if i came in during primary inspection she admitted that she was bringing her niece in on her daughter's birth certificate there's been no claim ever including a petition as opening brief that the statements made during primary should be suppressed there's no requirement to give these miranda warnings from primary inspection and the record clearly indicates that during the hearing before the immigration judge and on appeal to the board the only to testify he noted that based on her based on her statements made during primary inspection he would find that she was an alien smuggler but he gave her the opportunity to testify her attorney she was represented by an attorney all the way through th her attorney made the decision not to have her testify at that point so as her attorney's decision on appeal to the board which again was prepared by an attorney and there's been no claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in this case the only claim was that the statements made during secondary should have been suppressed so all the way through that leaves her clear statement during primary inspection that she was bringing her niece in on her daughter's birth certificate which the immigration ju the only issue that was properly preserved over which this court could retain jurisdiction was this claim of a violation of the t h s regulations during secondary inspection by not giving them warnings as previously discussed however that claim it's unnecessary for the courts to reach because the immigration judge made this alternate finding that the statements made during primary were sufficient to sustain the government's burden of proof that finding has never been challenged there's no claim that those statements need to be suppressed and that the governor referenced the fact and this so fast as i was represented by attorney that as he's proved in blowing the deadlines attorneys don't don't always mean things are done correctly and the fact that the judge just immigration judge