about the father's case but the government alleges that the father went to an immigration hearing in which he was not able to rebut the presumption of aiding the father we don't know if the father has applied for a passport or  they didn't say we remain still a government can reopen anything they want and they can look for new charges i mean it's you know it's a classic case of somebody where there's already been a partial storm or a judgment you go back and now they want to raise a whole new whole new plane if this hypothetical question but if you're quiet in between the two procedures have been convicted of an aggravated felony under your theory with the government be precluded the issue just raised by petitions council regarding the motion to reopen is a red herring if i may just be familiarized the court with the sequence of events there was no motion to reopen ever filed landed the case on august eighteenth one thousand nine hundred seven noting at that time there was no final order in the meantime the government had obtained some information that indicated that do on a daily basis find alien issue that is one of the things they are charged with doing he was found to be an alien and therefore removable from the united states were there yeah i think you have the same father would you clear that up yes and you know if you look at the immigration judge's decision which is lengthy and detailed and it appears that you are three sixty one through three seventy and this is the only th there is a difference because it's written in terms of the difference i guess the question on that i j decision is was there a finding of fraud i know it's carried over later in the  architect order but in that decision in one thousand nine hundred sixty apart from some discussion about questionable documents is there a finding of fraud and what page do we look to so we can kind of trace it forward the word broad is not used however it was more than just a case of a few questionable documents it was that every document presented not to mention also testimony rendered here's the ship  reasonably been discovered with due diligence and therefore that could have been i legal standard is the government that although we can win under both theories that raised you were caught i believe actually might be stronger in our favor and that's because the fact of the final decision re it's actually both that he couldn't rebut the implication of alien edge and the reason he couldn't is because all of the evidence he proffered had questionable authenticity you know whether you want to collectively call all of that fraud or whether you want to call it questionable authenticity the effect is the same he was found to be in a final order to be an alien and that final order need is a determination that he was not appropriately determined to be a citizen a final finding of alien edge shows that he did not have the status that was required for that i won thirty and that i won thirty was a prerequisite for her obtaining her lawful permanent resident that's what i thought so that's why i couldn't figure out why everything was focused on the fraud and maybe it is there because there are the very thing everything's talked about the alien i don't necessarily think it was necessary that that decision be founded on fraud only that he was not an alien now going to the knowledge aspect of it first i would contend that whether or not there's no evidence that are m this rather extended discussion we've been engaged in though which is taking you way over your time of money give some of that back to your opponent we've taken fraud out of the equation sounds like the government's position one of its positions now in the us if the father wasn't properly admitted the daughter could not have achieved in tree properly whether sr who he was committing fraud or not whether he had an honest good faith belief or not if he came in and he shouldn't have and was not entitled to she shouldn't have that's the government's position she had a little extra time thank you why don't we start with the legal proposition that we've just been batting around ok because the judge that's the judge bastro did find for granted and the portability were not available because the charges don't match up one your client still be deportable on another ground and that is simply that she does not have a legitimate derivative status because her father does not have status to confirm whether by fraud or otherwise sort of on a clean line between no documentation of the father derivative to child unfortunate result yes or no yes that would be able to charge you know if if in an abstract sen yes but in the facts in the procedural history of this case no because the issue is precluded at the time that you charge someone you must charge them with everything that you know at the time as a johnston versus i guess but i don't have the citation off the problem and your letter is your argument your point your theory is that the government that's like a criminal proceeding the government has to bring everything it knows