immigration fraud because the allegation is he does not knows the fact that he had a prior marriage at the time that he obtained his immigrant visa which was based on a second marriage to a citizen  contention is that the immigration service department of homeland security has not established by clear and convincing evidence that mr ahmed and is deportable as charged there are two elements that need to be established in order to establish portability  first of all that there was a willful misrepresentation to say that he was granted and lead a false statement in connection with his application and second that that misrepresentation was material now first of all it's so there's nothing in the in the record it's clear from the record that mr armitage did not make it false statement at best the immigration service can argue that he failed to disclose some information if you look at the application forms that were submitted along with an accurate statement first of all that that that first miracle that first relationship was a valid marriage for immigration for us immigration purposes and then second that the divorce that mr ahmed alleges was not valid for us immigration purposes clear or there's some argument about whether or not this customary law is recognized in ethiopia if it is then the marriage was valid and the divorce was also valid because those were both done in the same under the sharia law in the same way on the other hand if we say that customary law is is not recognized well then that first marriage was not valid for immigration purposes i suspect would most likely more than likely what happened when mr  going to inquire into what where these children from what's the first what's the relationship and more likely than not that he concludes this was not registered under ethiopian law and therefore that first marriage was not valid for immigration purposes that if i don't remember any court legal wife but whenever he says that he says legal ways in accordance with the laws of shari'a but from his perspective he was legally married his perspective he was legal made under his custom he was legally married and then he was legally divorced i guess my point is are you raising this for the first time on the appeal to the idea that he wasn't married before i'd never heard that before from your side well in fact you know that was addressed  the appeal to the board of immigration feels the first time around the immigration judge actually held that the the failure to disclose that information does not constitute fraud or misrepresentation on  clients in a very different situation your client has an allegation that's been found by the b i v that your client fraudulently obtained a visa mr singh's children are in the united states your clients children are  that well first of all mr mr ahmed in is already a permanent resident he has legal status in the united states and he's fighting to preserve that so it's not as if he has to file for a new benefit or new in order to become to get status in the united states as was park within a couple days and as soon as he gets that he tries to fix the situation he goes to a lawyer and says look i just received this please fix my situation but the statute says that the notice can go to either the council or the applicant in this case they clearly went to the council of the united way with that yes so there's no question about the notice he got notice as required by the staff great he got noticed and that means that the immigration judge acted proceedings does not receive notice then the statute allows for reopening but only under exceptional circumstances there are two different circumstances one is exceptional circumstances and we argue the same case this point rather but there's also reopening for failure statute also allows for reopening where there is no notice and as in the south a case worker where the person does not get actual notice then the statute allows for reopening even though the notice went to the attorney the notice did not get to the to right yes that would go to the second problem with it which is under the statute that says well are there exceptional circumstances for reopening and so i don't know what it really might be available but they gave him that opportunity yes right so he doesn't show up at the hearing but nonetheless he's never yet had the opportunity to have that that finding by the be i e reviewed by this court no which gets to whether or not the ethiopian government recognised a customary marriage and divorce and you look at the evidence for the i j a at the time of the hearing the original hearing it is what's it based on who's the other but that is only one document but if you look at page three or three and then the three fourteen those are two separate docket three of three is the document prepared by the library of congress and what does that tell and that tells us that for divorce there's the civil code of ethiopia provides a system of family arbitration far from customary law the jurisdiction of courts is only subsidiary to the powers of family arbitrators therefore so there is no disqualification for marriages that were not recorded whereas for divorce this there's a clear it's not only does the emory documents show that there's an arbitration a nice to be done but also the next as to whether or not the fort had any more we go back to why is this relevant it goes materiality issue as you are indicated and the burden on the government is only to raise a fair inferen have following up on what the judge nelson said it is it your position that if a petition or let's take this one out of it did anybody just say that they just sort of disappeared and we could find them for two months but the counsel received notice is it your position that you have to wait for the two months for the other for the petitioner to actually receive notice him or herself in order to be able to move forward in this pretty the i don't know  court need to aggress that issue about where to grow the line how but i would submit clearly where the person within a day or two is trying to sort things out that's that's certainly adequate and with that there is a line somewhere just not sure where it is certainly the person disappears for a couple  thank you thanks very much we appreciate arrogance and it's very interesting thank you very much