versus ashcroft holding this type of evidence is not clear convincing and unequivocal evidence there is a finding his father present on the issue of the court should follow this precedent process or other means and all the government has to do is make a reasonable effort and in general in the criminal context of the cases i saw it just made meant that the government's attorney had to walk in and say  tried to contact him and i can't and i've tried to bring him and i can't and that's about the reasonable effort that's required and that would be in a criminal context and we're totally outside the criminal context here why is th isn't enough here that's exactly what the government did your honor going back to hernandez what am i think there is language in that decision that specifically addresses a situation where the government exercises control over the i have that they should have kept her in jail for all that time in order to make her will if she's been detained the proceedings probably would have been rapidly accelerated that usually are things seedings her right let's go back error there is substantial evidence to support the decision by the people making that decision then the findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable would be compelled to conclude to the contrary isn't that the standard of review that is your hand in this case three witnesses hits evans and martin and then a fide client as aiding such an alien using false information saw your client meet the alien in mexico followed your client as she crossed the border saw the alien meet with your client at the probably stop in san diego them walk and talk together saw them repeatedly look back if they were walking then saw them flip split up and in the interview then and then in the pardon the hearing they the n come in with this information now tell me why there is some substantial evidence that shot her first a slightly disagree that it's my client in mexico i think that the first  statement the officers make about actually seeing the petitioner is that she's walking away from the trolley when the one officer sticks his head out the trolley door and he's two cars away from the car that rodriguez was on he and that's really all the evidence you're left with it would seem that that's not clear convincing and acquittal of the ins well we frankly we're not the ones that are going to make that determination the person who is determining whether the removeable is what we're going to turn to determine is whether there are substantial evidence on the record supporting that decision which is a different view i can make that decision at the point and i might disagree with these are you here are my disagree with a b i but we're not making that determination now we're saying is there substantial evidence that supports the decision in other words are the  fact conclusive with any reasonable adjudicator be compelled to conclude the contrary so even if i don't agree that doesn't make any difference i'm only on the appellate court here i didn't see what was going on i didn't hear the witnesses i didn't go to the hearing i am only reading strafford and now if there is substantial evidence to his fifth amendment right from which a negative inference can be drawn where i made all this evidence that i do we would regard negative influence in this court about that i mean i can understand you might argue that but i wouldn't be something i would do in this case your client did testify all she did was blanket league ny everything she told about leaving her house she told about crossing the border and then she told about why she it but frankly her testimony differed with those of the police officers of the i j a said she's an incredible we don't believe what she just said so anything that she said runs against again your based on the fact that they also more or less the same thing in terms of the operation based on the fact that they knew what was the most  opinion lied in fact her testimony was found to be incredible she was not telling the truth and she was just there trying to do what she needed to do to try to get out of that you wonder if the immigration judge is going to say that her testimony differed from the testimony of other other witnesses yes to point out how in this case i don't think that it is necessarily inconsistent with the other witnesses  mean you know there's two ways to look at the evidence in this case when she was great with me that the substantial evidence test is very deferential to the high jury yes sure so i've got to find the just i can now there's no credible finders no credible person educator could be compelled to conclude what she concluded they'd all go the other way that's what you're telling me can be found on this evidence that yes ok thank you all right case all four seven six six seven six amber is rivera versus me casey is submitted will now call qissa oaths six seven two eight one eight