application interview on the application for naturalization what we know about this case is that sometime in february of nineteen eighty six his girlfriend was pregnant by about two months and the family pending for now a number of years so we know that up until the time that he was interviewed by the american embassy there was no fraud perpetrated no fraudulent documents submitted to the embassy everything was if you will on the up and up what we do know is that in february few days before valentine's day everyone back in the philippines insisted that he marry his girlfriend who is now about ninety days  unmarried son of a lawful permanent resident but he was married that is correct he married in february the steps and morning entered in when he came into the united states about feb we know that someone else forgot the half occasion it was completed by another person someone other than the applicant and that individual signs off on an application and we also know that at the time that he presented himself for admission we know are money from february of eighty eight as the date of his mary chain did so consistently until he he was confronted by evidence of the earlier marriage am i wrong about  just finish with what i have that i think what we have here is we have an interview taking place one nine hundred ninety one and the officer is making a decision that he can't communicate with the individual and then later on we use that same communication if you well to deny the application but we then bootstrap the factual finding that we have on that application that there was a marriage an eighty six and the immigration judge the defense lawyer t trial attorney for the immigration service no one program made an inquiry into that we everyone just kind of went to the second and third page and went to the point where what was it that you put on the sample occasion i think for purpose is one of the false statements you are what else on the record reveals that he was also asked the total number of times that he had been married to which he responded in one he was also asked if he had the names of any of his prior wives to which he responded testified before the immigration court that what he did was put under oath and then went through that application question by question asking each question and then checking them off as he responded on page one twenty five of the record it also indicates that if the section had been left blank immigration inspector would ask him that section and then also write down his response to that for instance how many times and you've been married and his response was you want in on the immigration application there as one of the corrections made that he was only married one time so that is in good well why would you tell me all the false statements so we can examine the mets what i want to if you want to make a fine distinction i would say that he would be actually answering truth truthfully because he was actually married two years before that and he had a ceremony on that date in one thousand nine hundred you know you could understand the were asked several years later how many times have you been married that could mean either how many ceremonies have you gone through or how many people have you mary i agree your honor but then that means that if he's but whether you can be convicted of perjury is a different question as we've seen in the answers a number of people give questions people are not always totally forthcoming they sometimes try to mislead people there for some time in the interview process process where he was confronted with the fact of the earlier civil ceremony now it wasn't known at that time that if there was an earlier civil ceremony  i'm making up the list of false statements one is were you married on to twenty one eighty eight that's one the fact that the government cites to the other money as how many times have you been married correct didn't lie is a new one and in fifteen july ninety four he filed a pre pre hearing brief before the immigration court where he needed that in his naturalization interview he made quote the same misrepresentation which you had made when he explaining that he he was married and he sex he admitted in his testimony before the immigration judge that he understood the significance of being married prior to coming to the united states that's at the record one sixty