train and is the immigration judge incurred findings credit all of those as factors that the border patrol agents took into account when you made the decision to stop your client and immigration judge it not counsel when we were when we were applying a mode of analysis that the supreme court later told us was wrong i don't believe that the gonzalez rivera court rejected it or looked at it on all of the factors that the officer was confronted with applying his experience as in this case that what twenty eight year senior border patrol agent in order to determine whether under terry versus ohio there is a reasonable that they must start with specific and articulable factors to give an objective and reasonable person rise to a reasonable sense to which what are the factors that you would consider that were circulated by the officer that are this case you have an officer who when asked how he can tell mr perez was last he admitted in court he stated and i'll quote it was that was just a feeling on of mind i mean as far as no he was not looking around like he was trying to see where it was not physically but to me go to the specifics and if we go full circle back to this issue of hispanic don't we find that the only produce evidence here at all on that issue comes thirteen stated as the very first factor that mr perez appeared in spanish and that he appeared last and also that he felt make eye contact those were his list of factors and so even if he later contradicts his own report says well that wasn't really a factor if you have objective evidence in the record to contradict that contradicts what he's saying respon argues that simply by the fact that he contradicted his report is not to show that there's no evidence in the record but if an item of impeachment implicitly rejected when the fact finder credits the testimony you know the witness will you have to review the testimony in the light most favorable to the government on this there is certainly in review of the factors out of stopping people at the border because they were hispanic i mean that's it's almost human nature to think that if you're looking for illegal aliens that someone answer was i don't start people simply because they are hispanic that doesn't rule out well as being a factor i now actually i would have to go back and look i don't remember whether it was whether he was so whether you might think officers what it made it or not in those two cases which are the only two cases i believe on point the officer did admit that this prohibitive factor played a role that's not the case here which is why we twenty it wasn't in creatures violation of the fourth amendment where hispanic parents played the only role now the analysis it employed to get their we submit has been overruled to some extent by the supreme court's decision in our f where an officer perhaps had three four five six who knows how many legitimate reasons and hispanic a parents played a role but not only were in five or six legitimate reasons he was here analysis is the court should can't say that considered and without looking at any of the other factors in every case the fact that somebody avoided eye contact is not a permissible factor has to be considered along with the other factors and the other factors here are the fact that mr parris appears lost now the fact that he appears lost and the fact that he avoided eye contact perhaps gives rise to reasonable suspicion where otherwise might not because one would expect somebody who appeared last in the start so this is the use of the two factors and on the hypothesis that i understand you don't concede is that there was no evidence that refused to went through every other factor given by the officers found them invalid and then said hispanic appearance was the only reason we would see many cases where hispanic appearance is just one reason that the supreme court renewal would require the courts to close their eyes to ongoing violations of the law so i don't understand this is the supreme court so as you may not take race into account the social cost of taking race into account in many many contexts is too high so what you're saying is it's ok for the government you know it's immigration enforcement to take race into account and then bolster their case by saying and we can come to come up with some other reasons why you know addition to at least we took it into account well i don't believe that's our position first of all in britain on that the reason we don't want to be too quick to find egregious violations is that there's no question that this person is illegally present in the united states if we invoke the agreed u s exception to the rule in immigration cases he's still here illegally even if we terminate the deportation proceedings against him and that the court should not lose jurisdiction over the person and so when he doesn't have any right not the fourth amendment but there might be a situation for all of us fishers where if there was an egregious violation we would turn him loose even though the effect would be to leave in society a person who has no legal authority over me well driving by in the van that it was a hispanic family i would argue that he appears to be hispanic but not everyone can say he appears to be from mexico if you go throughout the towns here in washington we have towns are ninety percent latino and we're no longer in a point in this descriptor here is no different from in another case you might be dealing with a white male that goal for an indian meal a goal whereas here we have a hispanic male until i die and once again i would say that cure you have that person's fourth amendment rights and even because of the fact that you know we have to go back to the question i guess we started your argument with and that is the finding that it was the sole reason that it was not based on that yes and that's that's rule would only be left to cases where an officer openly admitted to agree just be violating the constitution person a judge could have disbelieved the officer if she thought the guy to thirteen was more persuasive than his task that is correct and whil court renders a substantial deference to the judge's decision there must be a basis in the record for the judge's conclusions ok i think we have the argument interesting thank you i thank you both counsel through the good argument based argu