case seems to stand for the proposition that the itu thirteen is admissible in these proceedings so long as there's no allegation that it contains erroneous information the can't get around aspen osa the that if you cross if you're in removal deportation proceedings the immigration judge said in connection with your motion quote there have been no allegations that this information is incorrect or unreliable you would dispute that you say your entire that it is in fact residency status under the nicaraguan and central american really fact known as the car i chose to travel to to you want to meet an individual from her extended family for the purpose of assisting that person in violation of law to come to the united states we understand that the question is the i two thirteen for the first issue is whether the immigration judge properly admitted the form i through thirteen in this case and the responde that its admission was proper because it is controlled by the law of this circuit and that spinoza vs ins which is held that a certified for my through thirteen and this form was certified pursuant to delegated authority by the district director that's administrative record one seventy five and one seventy seven is an inherently trustworthy document that the defendant has no right to cross examine the preparer in last asked in the last as you have pointed out that th petitioner that the evidence was taken in violation of any sort of the process or that it was unfair to be used against her in fact and i emphasize this point which is made by the board of immigration appeal the immigration judge there is really no discrepancy or contradiction between the evidence in this case whatsoever with respect to the fact that the alien petitioner made this choice to go and it's  some sort of entry into the united states the immigration judge however relying upon four pieces of evidence of record the form thirty the form that indicated she was paroled into the united states not admit i ninety four and of course the form i to thirteen the admissibility which is being disputed by the stationer also show that that individual was not admitted into the united states now it's important to know and the respondent has conceded this that be amy fisher in this case was lawfully admitted for permanent residence the standard in removal proceedings is the same whether she is charged under section two twelve or section two thirty seven and that is that the government must show by clear unequivocal and respondent understands it is not a fortunate circumstance that after this individual had earned permanent residence less than twenty four months later she made the judgment that presumably believing that she would be able to do it n checked conjunction with the fact that they were caught that primary and inspection they realized the birth certificate you know did not relate to the individual and they refer them to secondary for an interview and the  area and the immigration judge relies upon us for pieces of evidence i laid out earlier recognizing that contradiction but then looking at that evidence and finding it's pretty clear that she may have felt she had made an entry but it's a poor he's referring to the secondary and they make you