resource within the meaning of the social security act cannot and should not be detached from reality in the unfortunate and tragic reality of misfit you know situation is that despite any ownership interest in the subject property the property was unavailable to her as a resource and her argument on appeal is threefold first she was precluded from converting the property into cash or the property that she left behind in russia after she fled to the united states as a refugee by circumstances that were beyond her control and even if she was not surprised would it the record reflects the fact that her husband would opposing sell to the property and therefore that constitutes a sufficient legal bar and disqualify the property from being counted  considered as a resource and finally even if that were not the case the record reflects that the administrative law judge failed to sufficiently develop the record to support the conclusion that the property that mr aquino would realize and amount over the statutory limit even if she were to sell the property after considering all of the expenses associated with the property with the sale taxes and i have some questions with you on that last point and then my first series of questions i just relates to my my the record and i want to make sure i understand the steps that took place here so as i understand it when she first applied for s s i benefits when she bearing very very first application this piece of property in russia was not listed in this piece of property as it was not listed correct greit ok and then about a year and a half later after she begins receiving benefits yes to go through her we determination i was at about four years correct of some point along the way another redetermination takes place and apparently the gathering of the information for that determination was done by phone that is correct and there's an interview that takes place and she's assisted in then interview by her daughter as a translator in the interpretation correct ok and it's during that conversation that the property is disclosed that is correct right and it's during that conversation also that the twenty thousand american dollars is first is also revealed correct is she was she asked how much it was worth how did that well apparently she was but it was essentially an off the top response in terms of what the value of the property was but i saw she said twenty thousand american dollars she said according to the record which is the document that was produced after the interview by the by the s s a it says i believe the property is worth three thousand dollars and he said twenty thousand american dollars or is it twenty thousand rubles twenty thousand american dollars ok what was the basis for that just her yes i believe that was her guess at a minimum there's no record there's nothing in the record that's just other ways now we later know that there's a contract that this contract when her husband were has been gives her the property as a gift or whatever correct and then in that  technical inventory for belgrade region from july ten thousand nine hundred ninety eight correct so it is really so there was robles correct did anybody make any attempt to determine what really what the property was worth knowing that that's one of the arguments because the ultimate burger burden is on the administrative law judge but no one other so she told him it was worth twenty thousand dollars i think the record that's according to the document was produced ok after the fact right and they sent her that document did they actually center that document after the summary of her interview i believe they did afterwards ok and she's told during the interview that this is all under penalty of perjury i don't know the answer to that question but i will a documented talks about something under penalty of perjury already occupied and then ask for her to correct to correct the information if any of it is inaccurate right so and help me go to that has i should have succeeded as far as that at that argument what's troubling me is that it had to be raised that argument had to be raise before the two she writes i understand that my resource limit is two thousand dollars and that if my resources exceed this amount i will be ineligible eight fifteen twelve my husband gave me the apartment one thirty eight about ten years ago i believe it is worth about twenty thousand u s dollars no one is living there my brother watches over the apartment his isn't that your client's statement it i'm not it is a statement that was is that she it was sent to her but she never signed it where it said under penalty of perjury correctly center in english correct you were answering judge black's question honor so so i think the answer is i can't find where it was specific play right to the district court district court the l j fail to develop the record it was raised i would think the position that it was raised may not have been raised in form but it was reason substance and then there's not there's not substantial evidence on the record to support the conclusion that the property even after the property sold assuming the belle of the property was twenty thousand dollars we have to consider m former husband so so when i look at this help me yes when i when i look at what was before the district court what will i find that that says the o j failed to develop you said i won't admission of law judges obligation to develop the record and in fact according to the circuit the administrative law judges judy to develop the verb records have been heightened in cases that were claimants are have a history of is essentially that whether or not that this property that she left in russia was it was a count it was available to her as a resource within the meaning of the such social security act and that the precise issue i believe is whether despite any ownership interest in the property the only rational interpretation of the record as a whole as opposed to isolating specific points of or indeed give specific pieces of evidence is in which record can things evidence of kidnapping torture and that is correct she was kidnapped and she was kidnapped from that property the record reflects and that's at your fifty four i'm sorry you're fifty three she was kidnapped from that same property so that she was originally  but she was tortured she was kidnapped from the property she was she was tortured there and it's the record also reflects that the kidnappers with them follow her and from her every word she got status in the united states as a refugee correct ultimately she fled to the united states as a refugee based on those qualifying events and those qualifying events took place precise her status in the united states is she she's a citizen she says she was she came a citizen she came as a refugee and she was naturalized in two thousand and fifteen ok i'll let you go over your time so i'll give you a minute for rebuttal but let's hear from the government  morning your honour's justifying camera on behalf of the government i want to start with the question of the condo's worth judge prize you raised that issue and as judge black pointed out misspoke and did not raise that issue below the district court didn't address it was in the briefing and while she did argue that there was a substantial evidence issue that isn't sufficiently specific to actually challenge  critical issue in this whole case is whether that could be whether or not she could sell that condominium or whatever it is the governor calls it a condominium she calls it an apartment right whatever it might be whether she could sell it and get more than twenty two thousand dollars or american dollars that she could utilize for to supporters self correcting that's the key that was the critical issue correct the critics the critical issue as you are going to where there wasn't substantial evidence to support that that was a fundamental argument and and whether you know just how do you value that apartment and that's a precise argument but it's not a claim the claim is that is not supported by substantial evidence and that is not sufficiently specific in fact i believe and the district court in addressed this point and i believe that the district i believe that in the briefing below she assumed for purposes of argument that it was i would have to go back and double check that but i she didn't raise  not on the the redetermination that was just a phone call with her that was a phone call i don't know i don't know if the record actually indicates who was present on the phone call with her at that time but it wasn't her pretty head and it was during that phone call that she said that that the this issue mr king ascites of palm's provision in her brief and that provision actually says that in this kind of gives instructions to field offices about how to take in these claims it says that the agency will accept the claimant's allegations about her property's value when number one it says that this you know it's worth imagery value is twenty one thousand three hundred roubles how much is that worth in american dollars i think it's i think i think i looked this up at some point i think it was and i think it's less than two thousand dollars weighed less but two thousand dollars but but i think the point is it says inventory value it doesn't say fair market did anybody think of and her can you can you quote can you clarify what that one tooth is your twenty thousand dollars valuation is an american dollars today and how does it differ from the one hundred twenty three thousand or twenty one thousand rubles i mean  there a big inflation i mean what's going on and what's going on in this little town in russia where this condo is i mean we have property values here in america are skyrocketing in certain cities seattle san francisco los angeles right i mean is is there is the market in wherever this little places in belgrade is the is the housing market there you know just exploding that this property is now we're twenty thousand dollars well as opposed to about three hundred fifty two points number one number one at the same inventory value which i think is a fair to fair reading of that is that what is the inventory in the apartment but beyond that your honor makes a good point and misspoke you know was represented during the hearing and there was never a dispute over her original a variant to the social security administration here and she was not represented by counsel she was represented i believe by a representative i believe it was mr davidoff ski and i don't think he was was barred at the time but he's you know he's now an attorney so but so she was represented at the hearing and this point was never developed by counsel he had the opportunity of the represent and had the opportunity question his client about this and there was never any question as judged by a point out there's never really been any question property and there's no question that to be clear there's no question this fucking experienced some tragic events and the credited that you know she she underwent some serious issues a crime was committed against her in russia  she got asylum i believe from to stand eventually so there's no question about that but the point is judge by is that is that there is she has not submitted any authority that shows she actually has to be physically present in russia to do this or that she has contacted a real estate agent in russia or that she's contacted a real estate attorney here anything to that effect and she had she had over a year between the time that the redetermination happened and between the time that the  hearing on this and these these arguments were not raised during the june hearing just black earlier on mentioned the grab a minute counsel's argument was that they had a duty to develop the record  of those findings here that it was ambiguous or insufficient what the plain is it's not a lack of clarity it's a lack of proof and at this point miss folky now has not come forward with with proof to substantiate these reasons these arguments that she's making now on appeal as to why she take at least reasonable steps to liquidate this property and the reason most apps involve under the good cause standard the reason the steps involve you know at least reaching out to a real estate market it when at the end of the day they're just there she just has not come forward with proof and the burden is on her to to prove alledge ability in this case ok and if the panel doesn't have any more questions i would ask the court to affirm the decision in this case i'd like to start with the with the latest issue of whether who has to do to the villa the record in winston which is a district it's a district court case from from the circuit but that the lack of proof regarding expenses associated with the sale was actually attributed to the l j i mean that's i mean that's not president but it was the court applying the correct standard in terms of who has the proof to develop the record it was the l j that took upon itself the responsibility to determine if someone's risk some benefits and yet all they the so the only credible evidence in the record is mr keene us testimony that she would need to be present in russia in order to be able to sell the property there are those you have to believe that well t understand it as i understand your honor this that that's not that's not accurate if family we're dealing with a record that was developed in two thousand and twelve so somebody may have been at the property at the time but that things have changed and she hasn't been back at that time a family but that's that's what the record based on the document was prepared with but in the street and yes now with regard to the two thousand the government conceded the property was worth less than two thousand dollars a written in us dollars but the the record also contains evidence that was entitled to half of that property of half of that interest because he was after the divorce it's a russia as a community property state all right you're over fifty to fifty three seconds over the additional minute that they