please the court thomastown trio for the petitioner miss hahn this case is analogous to yemeni fare as well the pivotal issue in this case was an id document resident document that was submitted to the court and then later on sent to forensics and the forensics came back saying that it was a counterfeit document ultimately the judge denied the case on credibility based on this actual document and that was the main reason for the denial not versus a mistake for the record a medical document that was ultimately determined to be counterfeit and the judge in there denied the case because the same basis and the same reasons if you actually look to whether or not this client had knowledge of this document being fraudulent or counterfeit there are several factors that are actually help part to determine that she did not know for instance we don't have a positive inference on the record of how she painted documents we do know though in the record on page one thirty four and one thirty five lines eight and nine that before entering the united states in  canada in vancouver all of her i d everybody who was in there and that was being smuggled in all of their i d s were actually taking off off of them they have no idea on them at all so she came to this country with no i d so alternately we can  that every id that she received them submitted either with her asylum application or to the court was sent to her because she did not have any ideas with her so at this point this document harvey resident  document i do document was submitted to forensics and it came back and in there actually the document is half genuine and half counterfeit which is kind of interesting if you actually go to the forensics report it says that the outer laminate covering the card insert conforms with the specimens in the f t l reference collection however that the insert itself contains security features and fine details that are not presented with the examples that they have on file so unless my client is an expert in determining those fine details and security features she would not have known on its face because half of it the lamb in itself is actually real and genuine so this point she presents this document the judge in his finding says well how did she get the id card in the first place again it's never stablish in the record it's only status as she had no identity no identification documents when she entered the united states so it's really not determined of who sent it to her or how it was sent to her  at all but she did not have it with her at all as she stated on the record when she was coming into the country from vancouver so at this point the only logical inference we can make is that she had to get it from someone that had it in their possession other than her at some point logical inference why would somebody else give her a counterfeit card if she in fact had a genuine card i mean who knows what they use that card for and the insert for i mean you're asking because it was given to a smuggler at some point what their purpose is what other documents what they may use for to me i don't know i can answer that question why a smuggler would th card and she used a counterfeit card not knowing it's counterfeit main it's possible but is that logical it's possible and correct it may be not logical so so why is the i j a compelled to conclude that somebody else counterfeit a card for unknown reasons and gave it to her and she used that instead of a genuine card which she presumably had available to her because when she requested the document at a glance if you look at it half of it  genuine i mean literally the outer coating is real as supported by the the expert so how would she know unless she's an expert she says x part as you said in yesterday's case as an appraiser she's not an expert registry which does show where she was born it states where she worked where she lived so she proved identity ultimately the judge did not deny the case on identity he denied it on credibility because she he found no other reason for her supplied at the time and request if you go through the history of the courts the judge judge who is the last judge who did the master calendars set it over for another calendar for documents to be sent other documents to be sent t forensics however judge doc comes on the record and starts doing that marks the evidence and does the trial so it wasn't that she was trying to hide her identity she wasn't trying to bolster her claim she just was establishing who she was and i believe that the judge found that she had met that burden because he never and the decision denies that she never met who you know established who she was thank you for your time morning your honour's may please the court alexander lutes for the attorney general your honour's the record in this case does not compel the conclusion that ms hahn testified credibly where she submitted a demonstrably counterfeit chinese resident fraudulent keep in mind the rule of you made absolutely are let's go to regulate to yemeni burial there is no statement in the record that indicates directly that she knew or did not know she did testify at pages one fifty eight and one fifty nine of the record that it was her identification card she said my id is not counterfeit that could support an inference that since it's her car that she recognizes that she knows where it was obtained and would presumably that's true your honor and i'm not saying that this is direct evidence that shows she knew i'm just saying it's the closest thing that is in the right that's what i'm looking for some evidence that would sustain the adverse credibility finding that the conifer documents show that she has adverse credibility that requires a showing also a predicate showing of knowledge or should have known you know this knowledge  the documents were fraudulent that's what i'm after you've told me that this is they are one fifty eight one fifty nine this isn't testimony that she recognizes being her id card let's see if there's something else barry doesn't control here in the type of evidence that your honour's asking about isn't required that type of argument doesn't require that sort of evidence i'm sorry did i state that clearly you know very well your honor if i understand your question right it's where's the evidence that shows directly that she knew at the time to actually directly or inferentially circumstantial evidence is every bit as program that has wrecked the evidence show me some circumstantial evidence or direct of knowledge or reason to know the document was counterfeit that's a question your honor there is no such evidence on his record thank you but your honor i wouldn't give us the legal reason why any very doesn't think your honor the reason yemeni barry doesn't control in this case is because there are no facts that would indicate that she did not know there are no facts that would require the type of information that your honor is asking about in yemeni barry the petitioner received the document from an outside source and there was reason based on that record suggest there was reason to know excuse me or there was evidence and that records would suggest that there would be no reason for the petitioner to have known that document was fraudulent so using the government proves a can't prove a negative no your honor argument is that yemeni barry stands for the proposition that where there is something in the record that indicates the petitioner wouldn't have known the document was fraudulent we need to look for evidence showing that she did in fact know where the document came from so the burden the initial burden of proof is on the the petition to show that there is some basis for her not knowing where the document came from no your hon don't think it's a question of burden of proof i think it's a question of the type of inquiry that we're called upon to pursue based on the facts present in the record yemeni berry had very unique facts your honor yemeni very was a case where petitioner submitted a counterfeit hospital report but she didn't get the hospital report herself her sister procured it for her she simply submitted to the immigration court what her sister gave for the court recognized under those facts there was rea she had no idea that that document was counterfeit the pall on credibility that would normally be cast by submitting a counterfeit document couldn't be imputed to her because she had just submitted something another person gave her or i would draw the court's attention also to another case with similar facts a brummie on an unpublished decision from this court in two thousand and fourteen in that case yemeni barry controlled where petitioner again submitted a document she obtained from a third party and presumably would have had no knowledge it was counterfeit the document in question there was a birth certificate but she didn't get the birth certificate herself which was the last of the hearing where she got the document from i don't believe she was asked that question this precise words  simply gives was a substance like question i don't believe it was your honor but she was confronted directly with the counter with a report from the forensic document lab suggesting that the document was counterfeit and her only response was it's not counterfeit my id is not counterfeit in no way did she explain where she got the document even after being placed on notice that it was counterfeit that there was suspicion here she never explained where she got it she never disclaimed it she never said she didn't know it was counterfeit you honour's i'd like to if i could to draw the court's attention to six eighteen fed thirty nine ninety six we respectfully suggest that that case controls in that case the court distinguished yemeni berry and up held an adverse credibility based on a forensic document laboratory report saying that one document of many documents that have been submitted was counterfeit and in that case like in this case the immigration judge never rendered a specific finding as to whether the petition er knew at the time of submission the document was counterfeit if it please the court i just read directly a brief passage from that opinion the court and caucus stated although it would have been preferable if i didn't get the  honor that case that case is not cited in our brief but i'm expanding here in an argument we made at pages twenty one and twenty two of our brief a citation again for your honor it's six eighteen fed third nine nine six page eighty k katka six the court stated although it would have been preferable for the immigration judge to make a specific finding that katka knew about the circumstances of the articles publication the immigration judges failure to do so is not enough to support granting the petition  and expert witnesses testimony the expert witness had testified the document was counterfeit the expert witnesses testimony combined with caucus failure to disclaim the article or provide any explanation for how it came into his possession without knowing that it was never circulated which is what made it counterfeit supports the conclusion that cobb who was aware of the circumstances of the publication on appeal while challenging the finding that he misrepresented the documents history caucus still does not claim he was misled to believe the article was ever circulated that is sufficient under our case law your honor i'd also draw the court's attention this is an article of published in some magazine the thieves of myths turns out to be counterfeit this is not an identification document  doesn't testify as to his lack of knowledge as to where the given came from it's presumed that he vouches for its authenticity your honor i think this case is directly on point because it answers the question you're asking based on yemeni berry the principle from yemeni barry is that where there is something to indicate a petitioner would not have known a document here she submitted is counterfeit we must look further we must never explains how she didn't know that it was counterfeit the mere submission of that document to be enough your honor judge clifton actually cited to this case in two thousand and eleven in an unpublished decision called minda one lin how could i submission of the falsified document but gave wholly and satisfactory explanations in this case unlike in yemeni berry unlike in a brummie on there is no third party that obtains a document there's no reason to believe that ms h didn't know this document was counterfeit and when she was told it was counterfeit when the report was filed and when she was cross examined about it she never disclaimed it she never said i didn't know that was counterfeit she never explained where she got it there simply aren't facts in this case lik benefit of the button would you state what you think never question the before us on this record yes your honor i think the narrow question is whether her submission of the fraudulent id card on its own can support an adverse credibility fin what was very interesting about my colleague's argument was there's not enough facts to determine whether or not she had knowledge of this document was in fact fraudulent or counterfeit she wasn't she didn't correct situation yes and unfortunately i can't explain the trial tactics of another attorney why they failed or did not do ask these questions on redirect we look to see what is there in this record that compels the reversal and don't we have to find something yes and what we find in this case there is no actually not enough evidence or or facts to make that determination and we're asking actually to ream in the case back down for further fact finding an order to fully complete the record for credibility determination and as in we stated as i stated for before the only fact we have was that she came into this country with no identification documents so at this point she washed chain of custody of this document whatever happened to it afterwards obviously she had no knowledge of this because she never testified in the record that she had seen this it was issued to her in china that she had it with her at all times that she presented it to the court so the only thing we have in the in the record is that she didn't have this document and it was obviously either sent given to her