of direct there are only two pieces of direct evidence in the record that would support the finding that mr singh had any involvement whatsoever in the plan to smuggle knowledge and your core into the united states and both of these pieces wrote the answers and i think also if you look at the study stance of what is in that statement that also calls into question its reliability for example the statement says that bother of saying had met belgian or work for the first time in toronto when in fact there's been rebutted testimony in the record and that bothers saying and by gender for our first cousins and that they've known each other since childhood so i think it's evident when you look at that statement  across the border now the court in mark haste concluded that that statement was insufficient to support the judge's findings for two reasons the first reason was that the government had made the witness unavailable for cross testimony of officer olson and about what caliber i told him and in this case i think it's even worse because the government did not even bother to obtain a written statement from kalar like the government said in the hernandez case it's simply the oral hearsay testimony and after officer alston had spoken with calor i think government as to what is and back to canada and released them with no strings attached so i think it's clear that the government took affirmative fast and doesn't go to the heart of the issue the third was that the in the immigration judge reasoned that the officer's testimony was consistent with the retina record and therefore the officer should be believed o statement that was taken from mr singh in this case is a process that counsel excuse me points to me of writing out the questions and then asking them not to the individual and then right hand writing in  the united states of the plane port aventura he tells the inspector that in fact he had driven across canada and had been in canada for a week and a half when his testimony at the hearing is that no he traveled across ninety eight which would be in the united states obstructed rapid city south dakota he then we don't go to the events of april twenty second the day that he's crossing into the united states and if the court looks at the record that i individuals the two gentlemen and the child in this coward cross is it twenty two pm he had thing returns to canada and comes through about thirty minutes later it's quite a coincidence that there are only seven minutes apart and he meets her in bellingham having said that he didn't know where he was going to need her until she called the brother in michigan and he then put her in touch with him that  she comes across in the car with the three other individual he is costing south he's crossing south from canada into the united states he must of course northeast at some point before that and there's nothing there are actually two separate suitcases there's a suitcase in the trunk that contains women's clothing and according to the officer at secondary the photographs of that driving his brother's car that his brother and sister in law had been hiding a vacation shortly prior they had and they had to when they returned to their home they simply left the large misimpression i said we do not know where and when he eventually crossed from the united states into canada and that is correct that he testifies that he went from the united states into canada never made any findings with respect to what inferences could be drawn from that circumstantial evidence so i think what the government is trying to do here is to ask this court to make a new findings of fact that were never made by the immigration cord nation whatsoever we're just pointing out that all of this planning occurred on the u s side of the border and merely transporting a person within the united states after they've been smuggled into the united states does not constitute smuggl