jurisdiction that the board of immigration appeals clearly erred in denying the visa revocation motion to reopen the third issue is whether or not the board erred in the legal error in denying the motion to reopen the deportation or removal proceedings with regard to the first issue pretty much the issue of whether or not there was a fraudulent marriage and whether or not the the d a s d h asked or the service that there was a sham  e and that in addition what we're looking at is not a granting of a lease a petition but the revocation which requires of the government a much higher standard it requires of them that there  be good and sufficient cause to revoke and that the revocation be supported by substantial and probative evidence and with all due respect your honor so i don't think we have that here i think what we have to start with  intent when the parties enter into marriage they intend to live together they did they intend to actually have a marriage if the marriage falls apart after that that does not indicate a sham marriage just indicates that it's fallen as a statistic in support of the validity of their marriage of the bona fides of their marriage mr and mrs santos the original mrs santos carla and he submitted proof that they had had a marriage that was attended by family and friends this is not what is normal in a sham marriage they usually go off and it's just the two of them and there's nobody else and half the time the family doesn't even know th three officer she received some money and we don't know exactly how much because she wasn't clear she thought it was maybe three thousand and she thought maybe she was supposed to get six thousand if you're really being paid you know what you're supposed to be getting paid paid and paid well to do it so you got to i think rebut that very spot ok don't you yes they do and i think when you look at that statement at the statement that she was paid interview i think that the way in which she was questioned the intimidation that she was subjected to has to be considered in determining whether or not the paid for it it's very hard to do their business i don't i don't think it is in it and i think that it is that it isn't hard to hard to argue that that the marriage was valid although i'm not sure that that's really the issue i think that we really should be looking at whether or not there was the appropriate steps negative and probative evidence just for the the board's decision but i'll go to the issue  i do think that you can't get around the fact that this was a coercive interview because whether or not the the injury was coercive goes directly to whether or not you can believe the statement that she made and if you look at that statement and you look at it in context of the rest of what was said there in the rest of the evidence that was submitted with regard to the narrative i think there's more proof that the marriage was valid than that it wasn't  she as i said first she's told is this marriage is valid i'll prove it but if not i'm going to rest or now that's a great way to start an interview it does put things on the right foot doesn't it even once she said that she was paid three thousand dollars maybe and she was going to get approximately another three  she never was asked what it was for she was never asked how she got the money she never was asked what the promises were you have the officer saying in his writings so you're going to get the other three thousand after he got his green card where did you get that isn't written in papers and when it is in anything that she said he just that has been there just as he took out of thin air the idea that when she decided to withdraw petition she couldn't just say i want you to withdraw it but she had to put in all of the stuff that has they had looked together which by the way doesn't is not what she said at any point in time nor is that what the record indicates but that she had to say that they never lived together and that she was paid in order to to marry him and that she couldn't just withdraw the petition she had to do all of this or else they were going to prosecute her she had the right to just say i w titian he was lying to or he was lying to her when he told her that she couldn't just withdraw the petition he was intimidating her as he had been intimidating her all along there is nothing to dispute the fact that they lived together there's nothing in the record that disputes the fact that was it together with her mother in her family's house they don't do that for a sham marriage together the board looked at all of this information when they initially granted the first motion to to remain on the back for the adjustment interview  for the adjustment application the immigration judge who heard the whole of this information at the asylum interview was granted voluntary departure which means that she found after listening to both sides of the evidence regarding the the issue of the sham marriage that he was entitled to discretionary relief heat which requires that you be a person of good moral character that she had serious questions about whether or not the there was a sham marriage she thought there was some question there but she also questioned what the money was for and didn't think that it has been proven to h satisfaction to them to the point where she granted voluntary departure she graduated benefits that required discretion and good moral character and she sat there and watched him testify and heard all of that nobody paid bar he's never reached the point where he said my voluntary departure has expired and i'm going to stay anyway he's not there he hasn't reached the point where the voluntary departure order is final denying the aliens motion to reopen this case based upon adjustment of status we respectfully request that that petition for review should be denied because the board the board's denial of petitioners motion to reopen the visa revocation proceedings first with respect to the i'll standard of review of the court in reviewing the board's decision is abuse of discretion in this case the board properly exercised its just questioning and denying the aliens mission to reopen this is because the alien then perhaps he could get adjustment of status and then perhaps he could get the petition would be accepted and then he could get a visa and therefore he be eligible for adjustment of status  the board properly concluded that he did not have an immigrant he said that his contention was based on speculation and therefore the board denied titian or motion to reopen sentance this court lacks jurisdiction over the poor decision that petitioner was addressing which actually is not part of the administrative record in this case in fact petition are attached to her brief and it's outside the record evidence specifically the board decision regarding the visa revocation involves a collateral matter  reopen because the alien failed to show prime aphasia eligibility for adjustment of status i wanted you to hear bottom line so you can tell us why she's wrong if you can ok well i think that the court has jurisdiction o to the to the adjustment to his removal proceeding to whether or not he gets to stay in the united states and i think that case law is clear that that all of this needs to be considered together we're