asylum application there's a spot in boulder whatever that discusses travel west and your client signed that and my understanding is your client also used an interpreter at the  circumstance which is what happened here then write to me that the alien would have been specifically advised by the immigration judge that there was a frivolous warning in the application in fact what happened in this hearing was that at the conclusion of the hearing when all the evidence was in the trial attorney representing the government at the hearing asked the judge make the frivolous determination in fact the petitioner was was never told that that was even going on that that was a translator for him and when the judge asked the lawyer representing the petition hearing even know that the application contained that admonition he had to be shown it by the by the immigration judge so the petitioner really was no evidence that he was really aware of that other than the at the very inception of the hearing when the immigration judge asked him if  read to him but it's very unreasonable to say that that this form preparer in particular would have read word for word every single sentence in that application to the two to petitioner and the regulations require cite to the internet website in the opening brief where the procedures are available ok thanks the the regulations don't specifically say that or all those  explanation on behalf of patient is not by itself is the question of explaining the dangers of finding a frivolous application not in this case not in any case from just not in this case perhaps in a case where there where there was an attorney who was providing some sort of effective assistance maybe in a case like back to reality could be charged with that notice but here you have a situation where at the beginning of the hearing the lawyer representing the petitioner said that he never he didn't remember if you've ever reviewed the application with the petitioner and at the end of the hearing you have the same lawyer saying you need to know that the admonition appeared in the in the application so by all indications there is really a very there's a gap in evidentiary gap of any real point yes it was the the second issue as far as the proposal for a patient is to be a finding that the application was frivolous based on the evidence that was received from an ice agent who testified at the hearing in accordance with the i a e a it found that the that the ice agent testified that all of the applications that this form preparer prepared were were were fraudulent that there's really no inquiry into whether or not that agent's testimony and that agents of factual assertions were correct how he found out the twenty four hour with patients what was the technology used what ever did he make to make that finding hearing correctly or incorrectly knew immediately he wanted to discus distancing himself from this alien and this is silent application he didn't conduct any cross examination of that witness at all what he talked about was a criminal fraud investigation fourteen years earlier when he was the subject of a fraud investigation and he sat on something that he called a hard chair and what is very very clear from this record is that without lawyers main objective is that yours i don't have too much time period that all now i know that you have another issue but you're going to be talking that issue permeates a number of cases this morning so i assume you'll probably talk about that on the other one and well i if we can carry a thought from one case to the next now all right thank you exploration of the you know the interpreter situation did you understand what you were signing or you know any it anything like that what what would be your response to that first i would note that the immigration judge proceeded with extreme caution with respect  that was stated in the asylum application and mr chinese counsel admitted that it was there and at the very beginning of what is fair that's not just being a good but there isn't really any discussion of it during the proceeding say for example on an credibility when you say well i don't you know tell me you know what what's your response to this inconsistency or something along those lines mr chandy never was given an opportunity to say i didn't understand that very not my signature or you know what ok well he was he was given a chance to i just want to make clear that he was going to try to explain the fruitlessness findings and to rebut the testimony of the government witness in the case at the beginning of the hearing the immigration judge asked mr under all of these circumstances where he was given an excellent chance to explain but the evidence against him on the question and where he was given a chance to say that he he looked at the contents of this example that the case is i'm willing to back away from any of th still in this do you think that the argument that this is possibly a more aggravated adverse fine mean or that you know that the discrepancy star i pretty extreme that notice the regulations require that the immigration judge give gives the notice and again the the operating procedures for the immigration court specifically are directed to the immigration judge so the notice that's given by the form prepare where it's not on the record and there is really no objective evidence of of luck went on when the former hair is sitting down with an alien and preparing the form you don't know is there any is there any case out there that says you have to tell it and that you have to tell the consequences the exact that you'll never make it is there anything that says that you have to say that specifically sort of like you have to say it's twenty five to life and you know there's a lot of cases in criminal law where a person might have to be advised that there would be consequences but you don't have to tell someone ok your next sense is going to be twenty five to life where you won't be eligible for this or that  brings of i couldn't find anything that deals with these issues well i think that there's a commonsense factor in the sense that if you lie that i think i could ask a five year old this lying good you know i mean that you know i don't think you i mean in the worst case scenario for a year if you assume that if certain things the misapplication if you assume that he that the whole  saying is that there are all these fraudulent applications and that that in fact the case then he was never stuck in the deep in the mud as then the other twenty four and that there were some documents and all of that  ssible and need a waiver to reenter the united states again but that doesn't necessarily mean that the person also know that they can never return to the united states again and they are ineligible for any immigration benefit in the future and another thing your honor is that there was no finding in this in this case that any of the documents were fraudulent in this man's case there was no investigation made into the authenticity of a single document the agency said he didn't review this this case he reviewed other cases