immigration i have a problem with that here the attorney for juan if i'm remembering the right case sent a letter written on the day the brief was d again when we got the notice back so there was an error in our office that will not happen again we learn from our mistakes the question because not the question the question the you were given a date to file of the briefing schedule the board had complete briefs from both sides the government was not prejudice they did not object to this late filing they responded on the merits of this goes the other way you're saying that board deprived your client of her constitutional rights by not accepting your brief since they it seems to be entirely your fault that they didn't and since they did accept the response of grief i don't get where they deprive your client of her constitutional rights to be heard your honor the response of free was limited to strictly a response it did not repeat the arguments set forth in the opening br it was brought up there also i think when he sees me i don't understand how that is bringing it up that question and answer the question was answered that have the issue how do you appl for status in korea the our passport is in evidence and there start to be a question directed to work there was an objection interposed by mr coffey also at that point and how do you expect to get it with that she owns no real estate she has very weak financial ties she her eldest child is living and she's getting rich country where in this time my name is jeffrey bernstein i represent government a lawful permanent resident is given that privilege because she will make the united states home develop significant ties with and in the country and eventually become a citizen of your discourse case law holds as a matter of law that in l p r abandons that status if there is clear one equivocal and convincing proof that the alien has remained outside of the united states for more than a brief period and does immigration judge focused on and there is unequivocal proof that she did not retain such intention to continuously continuous linger during any of her actions as most important is ms one's stated intention for spending vast amounts of time in korea each you obtain a divorce and resolve family matters the judge found that testimony and those reasons to be utterly incredible would not get a divorce and he would support her and he would leave his property to her children again if she would not get a divorce that was relatively early on in the period and then you've got three more years following that where she spends eighty percent of her time outside the united states there is clearly an aggressive judge clearly did not air when he determined that her intention in coming to the united states was not stated intention of resolving these these younger stay with her whether she was in the united states for a very short period of time or whether she knew she was in korea i believe her eldest daughter spent a little more time in korea but essentially it looks like the children vance back and forth sometimes in the u s some so again the immigration judge probably determined that she didn't know that her stated purpose with it was not her real purpose so the only entrance that can be drawn and i think was the immigration judge implicitly drew is that she spends eighty two percent of her time in korea because she chose to live in korea and given that it would be impossible for her to prove that she had or it would be impossible for a reasonable fact finder evidence on the language and i don't remember the evidence on the language that was in there yes yes she i think she said the five that she thought she wished to proceed in and there were moments during the hearing where she  attempted to make short answer is in english but she really wasn't able to do so in the immigration judge said well you know you're not you know ms one you going to have to continue in korea intent not to return the unite to the united states within a relatively short time she really had no ties as judge nelson indicated to the united states she had no permanent address for this four year period she lived in during the brief time she came back to the united states from korea she lived in the house of her own by her mother but the house with her sister live and she lived in this house for five hundred dollars a month which is essentially free i think i from california that's five hundred dollars a month as it is i think to get a half of a house or five hundred dollars a month is a deal that many people would like she had minimal family ties to the united states she had a sister a mother and a brother there's no evidence that she spent any significant time with any of them if she'd lived of course with the sister going into insignificance when she was in the united states actually she and her sister had a falling out so at that point her relatives there except when she lived with her sister her most significant military relationship seems to be with her father in law as a father in law was providing her with the bulk of her support and paid for all of her trips to and from korea so it again as the immigration judge there's minimal family ties in the united states and great family ties in korea  there's again no financial ties to the united states again her father in law all her income came from korea her husband's center some support her father in law provided a great deal of money and years eighty eight in eighty nine when she was living here with her husband and he was earning money in the united states but she didn't file that until i think one hundred ninety seven and there is no evidence that she ever had a tax return for any of the  if at all and i think also significant is the fact that she trashes a lawful permanent resident who is ostensibly seeking to maintain two to have ties in the united states government granted her l p r status so she could essentially get ties with the united states specially indicated that she want to immigrate here and become a citizen she traveled from her from the united states to korea so that her child could be born in korea one with a good one intended to be a lawful permanent resident the united states one would want one's child to be a united states citizen her second child who was born in the united states when she and her husband were living here together so at that time they certainly i guess ha intent you know four years later three or four years later she wants to go to korea to have yet to have her child and not having her third child the united states citizen that that to me boggles the mind when when we're talking about an individual who alleges she intends to be a permanent resident united states given all these matters it's clearly that the immigration judge properly determined that ms juan vanda the aerial p r status significant and then as the final point about ms wong going to korea to have a child i would say that the government is speculating there and i would just like to share i once got a comment with or officer in school where i raise that same question since i don't know why my client went to korea to have a child and the costs are off there is that you must understand korean culture korean women are biologically incapable of giving birth without their