question before the court is whether the evidence in the record permitted the agency to reach the decision that it did in denying mr childs petition for marriage fraud the agency identified substantial evidence that d n married duran for the purpose of obtaining an immigration benefit and on the date of her marriage had no intention to share a life with  agency did not just look at children's conviction for marriage fraud where he admitted that the petition he filed was not a bona fide was not for a bona fide marriage the agency did not just look at the affidavits where admitted that she was seeking an immigration benefit so that she could get government assistance by getting the government assistance to reduce her to wishin did she actually get any benefits it didn't matter whether she actually received any benefits the issue was whether she thought to be accorded immigration benefits and clearly she did what immigration but there's the case rest on her apple and an application for tuitions benefits or is it enough that she found an i want and i want thirty application she married during no i understand my question is are the benefits that that you're promising the marriage fraud baran i had thought the benefits you were arguing was that she sought to get permanent residency on the basis of the marriage is not enough to just trigger the marriage yet so she doesn't have to apply for monetary benefits just like anything else it's the fact that she sought to be accorded an immigration bill of can i ask you there's no question in this case correct that's correct so the district court concluded that the government hadn't presented substantial evidence that the second marriage was fraudulent what it lacked what do you think the district  court substituted his judgment for the agencies under the administrative procedure act the agency is entitled to deference unless the evidence unless the record compels a contrary conclude so what was the evidence the evidence that they looked at aside from the conviction in her affidavit was the fact that the conviction of her husband the husband that you're saying wasn't really sort of her sham husband that so the agency examine the evidence since behavior in concert before the marriage on the date of the marriage and after the marriage before the marriage she admits that she needed to find a united states citizen so that she could obtain federal assistance for her to a ship so how did the first marriage go what were the facts in the first marriage the first marriage she married jason prince a little over two weeks later she received some divorce papers in the mail she didn't live with him again she paid this marriage broker twelve thousand dollars met him marry him she traveled from where she was in las vegas to utah married him and then came back there first marriage of any relevance to this case is it a fact that one could consider in determining whether the second marriage was a sham because no benefits were sought in connection with the first marriage right then that we know so it so my question is isn't the first marriage you may not have to focus on it my question is does it help you or hurt you i well i think it helps because of the fact that she was looking for a united states citizen clearly in quick succession and she admits that the purpose for finding this u s citizen was so that she could seek an immigration benefit so that she could obtain federal assistance for her to wish that was always her and purpose there's no question about why and i  and one person is married to help the other person enter the country what are the elements of the conviction of a has been he was convicted of aiding and abetting illegal entry you know she didn't she was actually in the united states legally on a student visa nonimmigrant student visa he didn't actually aid her into coming and the answer to the question that it takes two to tango and here one of them wasn't tangoing so maybe the other ones not tangoing as well i mean that's that's your point right i'm what i'm saying is that if one guy admits yeah i got married but not really that leds at least some white in the idea that maybe the person is marrying also wasn't really getting married either and then you look at her behavior and the fact that she went there she married him quickly she didn't you know she had time to sign immigration papers but she didn't have time to take wedding photos to send to her mom to show the news i understand the evidence is she left town that day never had any contact with this gentleman again no she says that she tried to call him but she didn't submit any evidence of the e mails or telephone records showing that she tried to contact him that her behavior is not the behavior of someone who married with the intention of spending their life with another person and then let's say if the district judge were had been the immigration judge would you be in a different position with all the evidence that was presented if the immigration judge had found that that she didn't violate anything here then would that make could but that make a f criminal prosecution where you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt then the immigration court where i guess but i guess sort of but the easy answer is that the immigration judge had the immigration judge rejected your theory on the fact finder could look at this record and say that the the decision should be reversed if that were the case if no that's not the standard the standard is whether or not a reasonable fact finder could find as the agency did to correct that standard is whether whether the evidence compels that's right which is to say that then a reasonable person could have found the way the agency did a court can only reverse it if no reasonable fibro sack ok let me ask you a question that relates to the second part of the of the test so let's assume we have a fraudulent marriage it has to be done for the purposes of obtaining benefits correct t right ok now in this case is i understand it the petitioner then says i signed these forms but i never authorized their submission or something like that the the i didn't intend for them to be submitted i called somebody in to don't submit them that could be rejected as a matter of fact by the agency i don't have any doubt that it could my question is was it is there anything in the agency decision that says you if i want you to file them with there be a two one bar under those circumstances to foresee negative reasons to marry there's no cookie cutter description of a marriage that anyone has to meet because marriages are those kinds of relations of that have a myriad of face well but this at the face of this one so the ok so here's let me agree here's the evidence that just bowls me over she never met her husband until the day the marriage she meets him in the early part of the day marries him in the afternoon leaves town and never sees him again they never live together they have no property together they have no further communication although she contends she tries to communicate with him not enough to show that the marriage was fragile you're looking at this like it's a typical marriage it isn't so that's what i know it's not where the law is that it doesn't have to be there's nothing to no i understand i understand that's a great or it's a great our knowledge it's a great argument that you make my question is can a rational finder of fact look at these facts and say gee mr gonzales is a heck of a lawyer and he's done a great job trying to explain away these facts but there are facts nonetheless i don't have to explain away anything and here's why she married in accordance with a tradition that allows her to use a matchmaker picked by her mother to find her husband by the way there were six hundred other vietnamese people in utah the were victimized the same way by the same two people by mr hall the matchmaker and something like one point two million dollars in a judgment against him were having duped six hundred vietnamese nationals to marry a u s citizen i imagine that that's the same thing happened in that because it's a it's a great closing argument it's a great factual argument if i were the agency i might buy it and you might have more explaining why you're but my question is must i buy it must any finder of fact look at these facts and say no let me then let me finish with this works very must any finder of fact look at these facts and say the only possible conclusion was this was a bona fide marriage because that's that's what you've got to show you how we get there she pays twelve thousand dollars to a matchmaker consistent with six hundred other vietnamese nationals did the same thing to arrange a marriage she did it twice so judge gordon was insightful enough to say look there's no such thing as a cookie cutter marriage this can happen in the vietnamese tradition it did apparently enough well enough to dupe six hundred other people that were also victimized number one number two she was in the middle of her semester in school so she only had enough time to follow her mother's instructions go to utah marry the guy that she designated and then go back to school what's instructive about all this is that she was enrolled in school there is evidence of that she was completing her school at c s and in las vegas nevada as soon as a semester and it she started calling her prospective husband try to make it rain she had already in november after marrying duran she had already sent in transfer notices she's already what's the standard here's the language that we have to establish to determine whether or not this is a fraudulent marriage the primary test for a bona fide marriage is whether at the inception of the marriage the bride and groom intended to establish a life together that's what we have to look at so the way you have to live you this marriage is that in a very short period of time she begins to realize that she has the bonafide intent to rely upon the marriage move in with her husband transfer her school to utah and go to school there and for some reason he's not returning calls he's not responding to her hey i want to come in and move with you i'm getting ready to go you know semester is over to the point she gets so frustrated in january of zero five that she tells her mother i can't do this this is it this is the quintessential fact that it's that was that is bonafide because she's not prepared to go court at leicester establishing a life together and she makes that clear to her mother mother gives her permission and guess what else happened she instructs these people were only all she did was sign the form and not date it don't file anything i'm not going forward and what else tells us that this is she had a bona fide inten when she realizes that she's that joy duran is not going forward and by the way she doesn't know for two years four years that he's actually engaged in fraud and it's a matchmaker is also engaged in whatever happened to was your was your not a single vietnamese national was prosecute right but my question is was your client listed as one of the victims i can't say that for sure fact i looked at that this morning to see if i could from there were seventy three separate  restitution and there's a recitation or that dinner by the district court and it lists every single person and how much money they're owed i take it she was not on that list i have no idea i didn't check and i think it's irrelevant what's the point is did you have a bona fide intent to create a life together with this guy and what tells us that she did is the fact as soon as you realize on the other side of it that this guy is not cooperating with her in a way that would allow her to make a life with him she withdraws and she meets so the government's position is that her signing of the i won thirty application and i think it says i forty four whatever the other one is is itself enough to establish that she sought benefits on the basis of the marriage assume for the moment that the marriage is fraudulent i don't wonder he says because she cites no single case for that proposition ok so what it what it what is what is tell me what the standard is that all in fact judge gordon said there is no if there is no case law you may have to make it in this case you may have to decide is it enough for her to sign the form put in your pocket so you don't file it well but now let me ask you now let me ask the next question i hate to interrupt you but i'm going to  it arrived at the place where one gets these applications that so you're a great lawyer but let's use the word filed and it's in its broad sense what does the in your view what does the agency have to find with respect to that there was the agency he finding is that she sought benefits on the basis of this marriage they received an application with her signature on it must they prove more or is that enough that's not enough and let me tell you what must know answer my question well what more must they prove so here's what i think they have to prove if she intended to rely upon the merit for the purpose of pain and immigration benefit if your biometrics taken that's fundamental she never had a biometrics taken apply for work authorization she never applied for that so tell me where in the state it where in this we're in the statutes of these requirements a year later this application is rejected i can tell you after practice in immigration law thirty five years the reason why there is no evidence of any relationship it was never submitted so she did not cooperate in an effort to establish this marriage to be a bona fide one when she had suspicions or stuff that this guy wasn't following well but now i'm trying trying to ask a different question i understand the point you want to make my question is is it your position that because the application when it was something made it is not file was incomplete because it didn't have biometrics and other things it therefore doesn't qualify seeking a benefits or is it what i wanted to see what your legal position is what your legal one is what is required to show what is required when the application arrives at the government's stance in this case two more things are determinative of whether made number one she divorced him when the application was pending when the divorce happened if there is nothing left there's nothing to adjudicate it's done and it happened before they rejected it the fact the next year so the second fact is they never actually accepted it it was never feedin it was never processed for adjudication it's like it never happened when the us the i asked rejects an application you are like you have never done anything and so when we were here to talk about what is the legal standard for having submitted application to be accorded a lawful status is that it is that really where we're at in this case not at all and fact what the evidence shows that she ran away from this relation never intended to live on it what else tells us that when she marries challe two years later files an application two thousand and eight in the application she writes on there as she's required to have you ever submitted an application for permanent residence she says no now this is before she's told that julie duran was convicted of marital  marriage she doesn't even know that she thinks that these people followed her instructions and never filed it because when she says in the i forty five several years before she's aware of any of this that she never intend she never filed for an immigration benefit she believed that it was true in her mind and so if you add all this stuff together what you're left with is as judge gordon pointed out is there is no substantial evidence and the merrill in fact the evidence suggests just the opposite as soon as she realized that this marriage wasn't going to work she withdrew from the marriages quickly as she put it all right but inherent to that the judge would have to make a credibility of call of his the judge believed and that he believed your client but in the prior proceeding your client was not believed and all of those circumstances for looked at differently the standard of review than becomes problematic for you because the district court doesn't get to have a trial don't know vote under the standard of review i disagree with that analysis about what happened in the lower court because what judge gordon did testify she was in an interview that was conducted it lasted two minutes and the reason why is in both interviews the only thing they asked her was was your joint a rank convicted of marital fraud oh it's a fraudulent marriage it's a problematic for your purpose the language and to a foresee we don't care what the the us citizen intended it's what is the alien intent and there can be different and tense in a marriage as we all know if you live any kind of a life marriage have that unique quality were once found may have feel one way about something and the other feels completely different mine thought she was going to get a guy with gr hair good point maybe she wasn't looking for that all right but if i do it in my comedy we don't have any additional questions so you have three seconds to wrap up so what i'm going to say is when you look at the evidence the evidence shows you not only is it a bona fide marriage marital intent at the outset but as soon as you realize it wasn't well who she is she's backpedaling out of this relationship she never asked for it to be submitted or filed she divorced while the application was pending never fall through in the process and that's yeah you might find they're all right go ahead in cannot cherry pick which of the traditional vietnamese customs she wants to the court to apply and which when she doesn't she but you're kind of saying like that's the law that the law says that it's evidence that a person seeking benefits said that's what you had to let me follow up and judge callahan's question because here's what troubles me what if as a matter of fact it was stipulated in this case or has been on his own filed the forms which she then be seeking benefits on the basis of that fraudulent marriage because she was looking for united states so that she could now but you know i'm asking you about i know what her afforded ok you have to you have to seek to be accorded him or attempt to seek to be court is ok so my question is still the same under that she signs these forms and says i'm not sure i want to hold on to them and wait for my and said i don't think you ever intended to seek benefits and if a judge below or if there had been fact finding below to that effect you wouldn't couldn't make the argument that you're making here he she hers mr gonzales's contention that you did she tried not to have these things while this agency have to make a specific finding on that or is it age is it finding that she sought benefits an implicit rejection of her of her  claim look at the record i'm not asking with a look at it asking whether or not they have to make a finding there is no finding here as close as i can tell that responsiveness that responds to his contention except the ultimate finding that you sought benefits and so my he so the answer to your answer to my question is they don't need to make a specific finding with respect to her intent i'm not sure and if you want supplemental brief you know i just i want to know what you're the she said my only question is whether the agency needs to address that specifically or whether or not it's ultimately finding imposing the fraud bar is enough i don't believe the agency needs to address that the so it's ok but thank