please the court my name's david will some appearing today on behalf of the petitioner this matter pauline's to go the last case you remarked at the end of the argument that was a complex legal question with a straightforward fact i would say this is the opposite it's interesting that there juxtaposed against each other the question is probably a simple question is did the government meet its burden of proving that the parties when they married in two thousand  ered a marriage with a primary purpose of evading immigration law let me let me make examples where you'll find less governing well it's simple because you have to get around the credibility findings and how do you do that well there are well i think it's some respect that's true on the other hand the adverse credibility findings would only matter as much as if it was actually the petitioners burden of proof so to the extent  adverse credibility findings in this matter it goes to whether the government still met its burden with the evidence in the record this is not your typical immigration case where in fact the petitioner comes before the court and says well i still proved i proved up my incorrect it's a misstatement of the record to say that the d h s s agent went out and secured these third party statements the person who went out and secure these statements was mr abraham she started sending letters in february of two thousand and four and kept sending them all the way to the end of the year in a letter like goes back to a believe it's thirteenth she first answer may thirty first excuse me she she indicates i will do anything necessary to protect the state she then follows up in july thirteenth two thousand and four and starts furnishing records which credibility findings are you i'm first i'm challenging that the government made a determination as to credibility these statements are credible if they're coming from the sister in law as much as they are coming from my client they said we'll looks and we will not consider direct evidence the sister in law was found to be not credible exactly but yet she was found to be non that the board at the outset credited the wrong person for procuring the documents that supposedly washer the badge of officer swear it says in this order the d h s procured these statements that is just not supported by the record mr abraham provided them to the government she went out and got them i thought the initial affidavit came from ms abraham yet then a phone conversation occurred on december seventeenth two thousand and four between officer swear and that distress was found to be i think that the testimony from the officer was found to be credible because she and she found to be credible so essentially the court relied on officer swears determination of credibility in adopted it and said in the court's view opon had no ax to grind so to speak though as part of the court's rationale for crediting what he said to the  that's true your honor in so then what's wrong with that as well then why should that be an impermissible finding well i think then would you rather than won't get to the heart of the matter which is the credibility of the officer herself when she's testifying she's she's testifying as to the record that had been developed over the course of several years this proceeding didn't start until two thousand and eleven in preparing for this hearing i went back and looked carefully at her testimony because i was still bothered by the statements of the board there was an exchange between the attorney representing mr goh at the time and office where and he asked her sensually what was the motivation when it comes praise it but it's not a very clear question so when it comes to finding motivation did you question any of these individuals as far as why are you providing i think you would say they are providing me with these information and she responded the probate issue happened way after the interview that i was not aware of that stuff when i looked into my investigation i still wasn't even aware of it during the state court and she says no no on its face her testimony is not credible just by her own words her veracity is now in doubt she doesn't recall that the federal government was involved and participating in a state court case had been a dinner fight as expert witnesses in that state court case had a group had talked openly with amongst officers again through redacted e mails we can't figure out exactly who about the fact that they're trying to help in the to deny that office where drafted the only reason they were able to serve the days because the trial got postponed that was the start of the defamation trial so she drowned that's not the probate matter now there are actually multiple matter shown to what i mean it's it's inherently implausible that the h s with i'm sure plenty of things to do would would go out of her way to conspire to help his sister in law not credible anyway well a lot of this i don't know how than you otherwise explain the e mail court communications saying that we're trying to help this individual this unnamed person in a civil lawsuit this is the document covered in the bullied foia appeal correct and then you have the late response correct and then you have on top of that the correspondence from the trial counsel or the defense counsel in the defamation case acknowledging exactly who she's talking to and what the plan of action was relative to the federal government and so then for her to come testify the plan was that officer palmer denecke another officer in this case was going to appear at the in the  if there's a discovery discovery request those then then that would be relevant to then when in the context of the removal proceedings when the counsel's asking for communications or information relative to that the government would disclose it because at that point about this case correct in the print current context counsel at the time was inquiring about the relationship between mr abraham and the government he had made motions for production of documentation or information that was turned away and letters her own letters indicate as much the july thirteenth letter suggests with says in fact she's confirmed that she had ordered the personal records why should be confirming it to a federal officer unless they can communicate about the need for them then in the july twentieth letter she wrote now that i have submitted immigration's requested information but there's no free log of communication between ms abraham there is no record that the officer is talking to or so then later when she's asked that question during trial  says no i don't know anything about it she's just not telling the truth so if you're going to invest has credibility the officer should at least be held to the standard of telling the truth about a simple thing when the entire body of evidence that the government secured came from the ministry of the state which happened to be so unmotivated with three hundred thousand dollars potentially to lose you represented your client before the immigration judge they're right i did not i am  the agent testified before the immigration judge there was no it's that's was referring to his trial counsel someone else a trial counsel had a chance to cross examine aged and then to argue that the agent because of the influence of miss a abraham probably i think your theory is asked opon leading questions or whatever to try to get to fit the preconceived notion that the agent and  happened or whether in fact opon was interviewed in a way that produced reliable information the record as i'm and as i'm reading it doesn't that the immigration judge at the time of making her initial ruling or her second ruling in this case considered mr all punk's testimony itself that she considered in conjunction with the other written statements that had been offered mr goelz credibility you asked what credibility actually go to the point the medical records themselves for example the government makes great goes to great length to make great hay about one reference to him claiming single in april of two thousand and two they don't even acknowledge that thirty three days later later during another medical appointment he checks married the other thing that's also at issue is missing goes credibility is being attacked in part of it is her pit portrayal of what her marriage consisted of and her marriage consisted of being married to a man who actually according to his medical records drank she said she fled a man who drank and then it was dismissed and was not pulled out very well at trial and i left knowledge that but it is in the medical records it plainly states that he drank four to five cognacs a day two to three beers and a bottle of wine daily for twenty years that's his owner potato representation to his doctor in two thousand and two during the course midst of this marriage when she's fleeing and coming back fleeing and coming back support jennifer corey on behalf of attorney general sessions i'm going to get off of my argument here for a second to just address that issue of officer square that her credibility  but that she relied on information that was given to margaret only given by margaret only to the extent that it was also corroborated by objective evidence also her entire investigation was not based on what mark on the information that margaret supplied that's completely untrue in her testimony she said i did a lot of investigation on this case i mean we looked at the addresses previous addresses we're in a national comprehensive report which indicates financial as far as credit cards or any links to addresses on would be margaret did supply a lot of information as far as friends and relatives and contacting them but i contacted the them to get information which is the five fifty one of the record as far and to the extent that she would have any bias i don't understand that to me as it is a complete conspiracy theory that is not actually backed up by any of the information except this one e mail the the issuance of the noid officer squares investigation just as she said was really based on a whole lot of objective evidence and that suggested objective evidence that we've laid out in the in my brief and the record is voluminous so i'm not going to get into all of it but i would say that there's three really important areas where it shows a lack of a bona fide marriage a lack of shared residence a lack of shared assets and a lack of shared lifestyle and all three of those things really back up what mr opon testified to and and corroborate his his version of events which he also gave an affidavit to claimed that she still refused to move in with him and was living with a cousin at that point past that we have formal leases executed for two years and five months of what was a three year and five month marriage  on whether he listened self as married or single but i don't think that that i think that speaks to him trying to help out and trying to have it on record sometimes that there's a marriage there so that when they went to immigration during their their interview they could have some documentation to show that and then also as far as fair lifestyles more concerned she had opened a credit line with this family friend and she bought a car with him and the as far shared assets are unselfish married but then again listen beneficiary as a sister and then a contingent beneficiaries as nephew and the the few places where they do have shared finances came later in their marriage when they were getting ready to go to there or to file for the petition to remove the conditions on her residency which is in june two thousand and two they opened a joint bank or a bank account and in june january two thousand and three a brokerage account together all of it does not add up all of it adds up to mister version of events rather than a bona fide marriage here and one that she and i tend to have a lifestyle together at the time they're at their marriage  there's no other questions i just request that the government the government quest at the court  you your minister will wrap up thank you i would say if you are the only thing i would add is that regarding the mistral pong in fact that there is no objective evidence that co operates anything he was to which meal it should that he was referring to where this occurred so we have an issue if this was in a normal state court proceeding his testimony would be objectional just be on the fact that it's vague he doesn't say anything time  place just some year in minnesota and there's no proof that he actually traveled here in fact he actually got out of his lawsuit when he was named as a defendant in the defamation case or is own claim because he didn't have personal jurisdiction here yet have enough necessary contacts which then itself says if you are going you have no contact with minnesota and how are you here that actually witness the conversation you're you're talking about so that your own home i thank you for your time today because and if you counsel cases been well briefed and argued i hope it's a coincidence and not something in the water it's the second fraudulent marriage case i've had in the last few months probably never none never before keep them away but i did we just i just filed the opinion on a case call and the last week and the law is consistent with the law as you briefed it so i don't think it changes anything