to cross him across the border and drive him to los angeles that's a pretty damaging admission on the part of your client that he was actively involved in arranging his intrigue into the united states  supposed to do he heard the testimony he listened to what your client had to say and after listening to what he said including the passage i just read to you he concluded that he had actively participated in aiding and abetting the smuggling entry and in essence to give you the relief you're asking for don't we have to declare that that factual finding is clearly erroneous that you just can't read that that testimony the way that the immigration that either lewis was threatened or that they will let us leave it at that there's no evidence that anybody was threatened he just said i need to pay to pay the guy can you give me the money and no i don't believe they actually went over the testimony of the testimony that i read from the merits hearing on october twenty sixth two thousand he had a lawyer suppose i suppose lewis made it to los angeles on his own power showed up at the house and he's living there for six weeks and then the smuggler comes by he says i need to collect my twelve hundred dollars interest the interesting question would go to whether or not the method meant that the process has not yet been completed i think that would be a different faction area however but not nonetheless the question would be does the payment is it part and parcel of the smuggling operation would that smuggler go away and say well  just lost money or what in fact the smuggler require payment as part of the deal but i mean is the smuggling over it would seem there is living in the guy's house is the smuggling over he may have been in some other offense a visa an accessory or something r matters it would be no different really from saying well what if he crossed the river and then agreed to pass as opposed to prior to that ultimately it doesn't matter if in fact it's part and parcel we all know that aiding and abetting for example one who  when we cross the border well did you know he was coming to stay with you well he answered yes he told us he was coming and we helped him out paint has crossed the can't sort of complicates the circumstances but i don't know often they remember that this this this statute is not just aiding and abetting it's encouraging assisting abetting and aiding in the certainly that in this case the question was did times have you helped your brother move us into the united states illegally and he answered that was the only time he didn't three separate admissions that he assisted his brother they enter illegally lewis the answer was a person that lives here meaning in los angeles they have a station wagon or pickup truck and he went down there to their home an area in mexico and he when he came back he gave him a ride to no gall assisted the process through his own admissions and through the evidence later that the twelve hundred dollars was given directly to the small book and the facts show it  don't know the answer to that one it's certainly not not the facts of this case because he had four knowledge he knew that lewis was on his way to the to do a united states before he crossed the borders mother had called she expressed concern that was part of her that was part of louis i said yes he asked me for the money i told him i had it with me that he needed to see my brother when i saw him and my brother got out of the car and i gave the money to my brother and my brother gave it to the first and we left and the the crossing had been completed consistent with his admission at the very first hearing and system with the thing so ultimately the question becomes here is there substantial evidence in the record and as a judge th that i believe that ultimately the government's position here that to find compelling evidence that would force you in essence to require you to rule against the board of the i g here you have the dish three guard three separate admissions that he helped his brother cross illegally and ultimately this is a substantial evidence case it's a favorable review and to be honest if you're not of the i think under the circumstances have any of us been at the trial level we might have taken the evidence and gone a record shows an f b i by the time there was a merits hearing which testimony was taken on this issue was october of two thousand long after the very beginning the very first airing the master counter hearing which you did not have a warrior he did not appear once he was ruled he was found deportable in a sense you have he got a lawyer moved to reopen and i wasn't frankly open in the abstention order was removed and then there after he was represented by counsel throughout including the october two thousand hearing in which he first stated yes i helped my brother and if so three times he had counsel with him at table during that hearing and then and then was that the immigration  over yes in fact that just as i believe now the problem is that he made there may be a per se bar and so the judge didn't put it over and then it didn't have the hearing wasn't held for another year and a half you know in which then they came back and addressed the issue more so basically what you're saying is i'm looking at a r one fifty five the first merits hearing over twenty six two thousand when he was represented by a lawyer the immigration judge in light of his admissions at page one fifty five we now based on this testimony we now have a problem here and the problem is that he may be barred yes lines four five and six that's correct he said i do did what he was supposed to do unfortunately congress says if you if you assist a better age someone to cross the border illegally you are you are you are barred from good moral character and that's why he was ineligible for a all up there and just rattled off like this and it's not even clear to me because you have the interpreter in there you know you never know what's coming out on the other end you know the substantial evidence the first tearing is an unadulterated on interfered with by the by counsel statement of the truth the later hearing is in fact in attorney driven interrogation urkel cross there should be else besides testify truthfully that made him lack good moral character you're going to send that information i enter a decision at the next hearing but you should come back and be prepared to address section one on one yes and she has to live there but she basically was given the lawyer one last chance to kind of regroup and your job well done