it is whether or not there is substantial evidence to support the determinations made by the hearing officer not whether we agree or disagree with the outcome of your greed that that's what we're looking  and then we believe the their credibility findings are not based on substantial do you think it was arbitrary for the hearing opposite to document it in common is often used by he can see for the threshold amount of head of household so i think in this case it was but is it required to george provided a lot of them and i think what is at issue to is when she she was involved in an international form of an income that has always been recognized by  agency as another catherine holmes she was only an arts and crafts for her brother in law and that it should not have been required as a as requiring document of employment and testament and i can push back on that a little bit because that as i read the memoranda i guess i split up is the memorandum in the manual neither one of them seems to be quite should but it doesn't really go into a lot of detail about what those circumstances are and so i guess i'm wondering how strong your argument is and then i and to double down on that go to the manual is says the manager where there is not proof of cash income and the manager will consider the applicants unique circumstances and authorize a field investigation where other substantiating records and so even that manual suggests that there will be something it's just a more lenient standard of what that something would be and so i'm not i  guess i'm wondering how how strong your arbitrary capricious argument is when these documents or the internal procedures don't seem to be as definitive as i think you push them in your brief oh well you're i think i think you have to look at whole rapid pace well and i and by the way i mean i think that there's a good argument that something more should have been done here but that's that's not really what we're looking at we're not reviewing this in the st instance we're saying where they are but was that hearing officer arbitrary or capricious in looking at this evidence and discounting apparently that  them because the the petitioner here she she says she did that job for two or three years and then she only focuses on the one year now maybe that's because the other years were after the cutoff so you can correct me on that but then the other part of it is that there's a bunch of income that she has that she didn't so you know user support that were put on her  apologize i think it was the sources fury she and there's nothing that shows up as to this and so it suggests that she was good at putting forward this cash income in other contacts for government records but she didn't just do so here so anyway i know i've packaged a lot in that one of your package i think you have to look at the statute and the regulations in reference to ms georgia's unique case your honor so she had to prove she was self supporting on july th one thousand nine hundred and eighty six that's because that's what the regulations say was represented t hearing officer fine because she worked for the st six months for her brother in law so they're hearing officer just who said that he did not discount that she actually relocate he had twelve all months to make it to meet that presumption but the hearing officer erroneous leaving and arbitrarily apply this this year and to a seven month period and furthermore when the presumption obviously didn't know why he did not look at this young woman's facts the shot that she was not supporting i'm as love the regulations as ninety nine but he bases almost every one of his findings of facts on us on this jordan testimony that it was arbitrary capricious to reject the old thirty one had he had the hearing officer just credit heard and percentage that are twenty percent of that and discounted  because there was no there was no documentation that that would have been enough is that your argument well that's part of the argument yes there are i mean he's not saying she never worked for  said he's just saying that even though there is unrelated consistent testimony from her and her on that they were not given any cash any any employment or wage documents that is consistent on rebutting testimony but the hearing officer is the same well as it as a matter of basically personal policy i do not recognize and i default fin and that's that's my concern is i'm not sure it is opposite because if you look at the manual it says that where there is not you know evidence of proof of cash income he can look at the unique circumstances and authorize a field investigation doesn't seem to be a political here seems like that would be performing or other substantiated records i know your argument i guess would be here the other substantiated records are the testimony of the sister or the other witness and that should have been enough but i mean i just don't know that it's as clear cut as you tried to make it under their internal policies but i appreciate you elaborating what they were what is being ignored your honor i'm hearing officer is is what the regulations say that as a nineteen july seller bank one hundred and eighty six that george had to prove he was self supporting and there's no analysis on that at all officer and there's agency has to follow their own regulations your honor and they didn't and and when presented with the evidence it's not it doesn't even go into the analysis all that goes in is  misapplied presumption of one thousand three hundred dollars and it is a presumption and she was awful close and she had lost her ancestral farmland by an act of congress and she deserves more deserves more than just having the hearing officer say now it's my personal policy i don't accept i don't accept anything but written documentation and then he actually states that their testimony is no minute for rebuttal let's hear from the government had reached the point of being her own self supporting head of household where she was twenty years old and spent virtually all of the previous fourteen months living with her sister where she did not pay for her own rents her own food and her own transportation  agency to an undocumented claims of income so it really does for me to imagine a case at least for a single person and where they would demonstrate they were out of town hall and i think there could be a situation where a person earns slightly more than thirty one hundred dollars and in which they are paying for their own rent their own transportation  hundred and ninety nine dollars can this person show she's a head of household or other actors establish that she is self supporting that she lives alone she pays to read does not depend on anybody i guess  that she was not listed as one of those dependents is that correct she was not living with her parents at the time but she was but there is now but that's different from the question of whether she was supporting herself we would certainly say that if you were living with somebody and she was living independently of her parents she was helping them she was working on her own i mean it's aunts and more or less you know allowing herself to live in that apartment these other factors at all he was still focused on this one thousand three hundred dollars and treated it as an absolute rule and it seems like you you all when you're the relocation doesn't look like and it looks like the hear us or should be looking at all of the other evidence in the record and that's what caused me here well your honor i mean i got a couple points in response to that i so now that the position seems to crystallize where the hearing officer said i just don't believe that the two dollars would be so i don't believe that employment exist and what i want to know is what was the basis for that because now you've got a hearing officer making specifically an adverse credibility by but it seems like this there has to be substantial evidence to support that what is the evidence to support that she was just flat out making it up so you say your honor i think i  last under more difficult conditions thirty years the hearing officer concluded that the scale of the business didn't make sense he noted that in order for her eight hundred and fifty dollars a week or her aunts we paid the same amount for justifications or to support substantial evidence because the lack of documentation the the here in oxford never explained why her by mr george then the the hearing officer seems to fall turner for not maintaining receipts that she admits she never had and it's been twenty over twenty five years ago so how d any effort she may or may not have taken in the forty four years between the administration correspondence and the hearing but i take the point that she did ask and i mean i think i think the lack of documentation is itself sufficient reason and just because it is r and so i'm trying to figure out why you're not following your memorandum when it goes to that that's why there's some internal inconsistency is that i see respect to your memorandum and whether he follow it  going on around you know the restoration in other parts of the state or i think most people would consider that an h r and rather a regular form of employment no matter how much you know you're making it's just not or it's not  just seems like a hearing opposite or may not have taken into account some of these provisions in the memo which i mean it seems like that he may have been a bit lemar my own and share random stuff you know i mean she this is what she certain explaining what her twenty year old self why she would do something like that it's just the record reflect that she did in fact meet expenses when she was sharing the apartment well it's the only statement is what i've said your honor and i'm sorry i was looking for the the records by patient but she says i wanted to know when asked by the united states why she did not why she would have a child she said i wanted to be on my own supporter my cell you know pay rent and stuff like that that's the testimony i think that some of i think in fact then there is no question she was living you know how how can she how can the united states say you're not self supporting even though when she's living with her sister even though she's helping support her parents she's working for her brother on mr percentage any income as she's not she's living in her sister's hours then in june when she moves into a girlfriend's house and it is no longer with her she did twenty seven years ago because of the our total disregard of the agency in the rights of the people they are a real ok and now they're saying well when you're living with your sister supporting i mean this is this is not the way this is a this is she is being treated arbitrarily and this hearing officer to to nail it down so as it's not credible because it's my personal policy and this isn't the record that if it is if it's twenty seven years ago and you don't have documents you're not credible and then he goes on and he tries to give