we just had it also involves a person who was detained at the border by the border patrol it involves a motion to suppress in this case the document that the petitioner seeks to suppress is the for i two thirteen the document which is missing from the other case the protect in this case is judge was on mentioned moment ago you do challenge the arrest that's correct you argue that there was no probable cause the the respondent argues that there was no probable cause to arrest or that the two thirteen didn't even make out the  but she hasn't said anything very specific about what happened other than once and then i took her kid and she said they didn't ask me my name  and where i was from as you say they didn't they didn't take her documents or that she said that they didn't receive any documents from for her until after she was arrested and incarcerated that there wasn't a reason to to detain her if there was a suspicion that she was an alien and she was a legal united states that that the laws clear that the border patrol has that authority to  they don't they don't explain at all where this information came from and sure sure it does look at the narrative second sentence a border patrol agent determined this subject had unlawfully entered the united states from mexico and what the that's our one thirty six and then air one thirty five tells us what she actually told the border agent which is she derived from mexico by raft the petitioner has as maintained your honor that this i t thirteen is not a reliable record and that the description of her you're shifting gears you're saying that the i two thirteen doesn't establish what the petitioner told the agent and it says it right here in plain english now the agent doesn't connect the dots but the agent doesn't have to connect the dots in the narrative the agent said i determine the subject head off unlawfully enter the united states from mexico and then on the previous page he explains how by raft the so sure has so isn't the agent saying the petitioner told me that she had entered the united states from mexico by raft i don't know that that's how they determine that at all she didn't admit that at all at any point and it but she never said in her declaration that she didn't tell the agent that she had entered mexico the united states from mexico by raft right now she did not she did not deny that that specific allegation she but your honor the the the issue presented it was whether or not this i to thirteen and this description that you're focusing on is a credible record of her of her arrest the petitioner has contended that this arrest description and the description of her immigration processing when she was in the border patrol station was just more of a plate language it was language at the border patrol has used over and over again in dozens and dozens of other right to thirteen's so this is not a description of her encounter and her arrest by a border patrol agent she didn't she she had that when she did the declaration she had the eye to thirteen right yes so in the declaration she said i wasn't asked my name i wasn't asked my origin i wasn't asked my citizenship but she never said i wasn't asked how i got here and i never said that i got here by raft from mexico she did not deny the allegation in the thirteen that she had illegally entered the united states then how can we then how can you argue that there was not just a violation of the fourth amendment but an egregious violation of the fourth amendment because  the the two thirteen allege that she was arrested because the border patrol agent had determined that she was an alien who illegally enter the united states and she denied the allegation that and it was determined in the eye to thirteen was submitted for the specific purpose of proving any image at the removal hearing and that's what she was contesting can't can't be age and infer from an arrival by raft from mexico across the rio grande river that the person's an alien an agent  could do that but that's not what the i two thirty says the eye to thirteen says that a determination was made but doesn't specify on what basis that determination was made it doesn't it doesn't say that i determined that she was now in because she arrived on a raft it describes it alleges i'll grant you that it doesn't connect the dots but look it's a two page document and the only and friends you can draw from the narrative part saying i determined that she was an alien is because she had arrived from mexico by raft but none of these are none of this information another these arguments were made by d h as up we will hearing it just like in the in the prior case a motion to suppress was was walked away there should be a consequence for that and to be abused its discretion and deprive the petitioner of her fundamental right to the reasonable exercise of the discretion when the b i didn't force its practice were if if there is information that's not accurate in the in the eye to thirteen for example the the dates of these documents the according to this narrative the  r was was read the information on the ice age six seven advised of her rights she indications are stored she said she was willing to make a statement that narrative was prepared two days before the interview took place it was impossible for that officer to know what was going to happen two days in the future i think that that reason alone cast significant doubt on the reliability of this eye to thirteen and not only on the reliability of whether or not she understood night six seven whether she was willing to make a statement but it also casts doubt on this allegation about how the border patrol officer determined she had illegal all right but but you're assuming that that means when they wrote it rather than when they found her the circumstances he or she just crossed on a raft across the rio grande a pretty good indication that she's entering illegally she is then transported to the border patrol station where she does not make a claim to any kind of future unlike back you have the interview and that interview that process of that interview is well documented and i eighty thirty five b one a roman it or one and that's the process that you see in the documents playin violation of any law or regulation that is likely to escape before work can be obtained for his arrest does that mean that somebody special or probably cause would be reason to believe which i believe is i would i would assert i believe it's lower than probable cause ascertain the fact that she has a legal which is imminently inferrable from the fact that she just held across the river on a raft and whatever happened twenty five minutes later by border patrol when there is a border patrol station you know a short distance away where border patrol didn't ask me if i was an alien and i stood there silently after they just watch me illegally enter our country and you say well gee is that that's a good reaches constitutional lawyer aleutian that strikes me as a bit absurd and everything that followed is spanish the vitals are clearly there indicates that was read to her and she refused to see so at that point they have two options they can you know gather additional evidence or find her removable on that basis or that exercise discretion which they did and they issued her in both of these cases we see the alien going from the two thirty five proceedings to two forty traditional proceeding four hundred when the notice to appear is issued in this case  warrant being filed because she was being held previously as required by law under two thirty five and after she was put in to go to forty proceedings she's now being held under i need to thirty six which is noted on that arrest warrant in the first case and that's plainly noted on that document and that was the reason why because the underlying legal rationale for the change you change from not needing a warrant to needing the war here we don't have to go through that how even if as she says she was not asked her name place of birth or that my count country of citizenship because they know that fact has been assumed throughout this case that that's true then they had probable cause position is that even if they made no attempt to ascertain who she was or or whether she was an alley and or what her where she was born or what a country says unship is just by seeing her come across in the u s in violation of any such law it's reasonable to believe that someone who paddles across the rio grande rather than going to the border station that's you know a number of feet maybe maybe a mile away you know but that person is intl entering the country seeking to avoid inspection and rina legally plus here they are two thirteen does detail as strange woman pointed out what that process was that the officer says here's how i interjected the sentimental the raft twenty five minutes later when he interacted with her because he has going so at that point he has no more information than he did before according to her but that's that's that's his that's is all and swore that's the declaration sad as it is i was not asked my name my place of birth or my citizenship it doesn't say i was not asked how i got here so yes or should you should your argument be that there is i mean should your argument be that there is no contradiction between the declaration and the part of the eye to thirteen that refers to the raft absolutely or are even if even of all those facts were taken it's true that still absolutely because absolutely or and wouldn't those documents establish that the petitioner was an alien from honduras absolutely and that would be an independent source of ascertaining her or her alien interest and that warrantless search of her person is plainly authorize to eighty seven c it's a power to conduct a search without war of the person and of the personal effects here we have personal effects and possession of any person seeking admission to the united states and under two thirty five any a and in reaching it so let's say you when harry gets reminded the b i considers the documents and then we get the same result not necessarily she could make other argument she did make other arguments and in her brief why those documents were not  cylon officer found she had a credible fear one hundred thirteen does allege that she was a surprise given a credible fear interview but there is no evidence here at all that unlike the other case there's no i eight seven in both of these cases though  both of these petitioners believe that their motions to suppress were denied wrongfully and they were going to appeal that decision if you had asked for relief filed an application for relief admitted that the information in a defensive asylum application can't be relied upon by d h as to proving that at the hearing but once it reached the point where she was if a person was testifying in support of the application i think and in a harsh conditions in humiliating conditions she was eighteen years old she was six months pregnant this information was omitted from the i two thirteen so that the reader was was deprived of all the claims it appears to be in good health it's not inconsistent with being six months frank no but holding a an eighteen year old a woman who's six months pregnant in a frigid we're not giving her any relief from the from the temperatures and giving