was inadmissible because it was not authenticated and was not certified by the regulations authenticated by any other means that mr let me start if i could with your first one that is that the birth certificate could not be used because it was attached asylum application i understand that argument but i looked and i looked in thing to find where that had been raised before the board from the appeal from the i j a and i read and re read the briefs that was submitted on behalf of your client and i see no place where that issue has been raised and if that's so under the usual rules why is it where you your honor i do believe that the board was on notice direct the board does not have to search through everything if you haven't raised in your brief one way well your honor prior counsel did put forward facts that he was  judge and the judge there was no transcript of the june second two thousand hearing at all and then the judge in her decision in two thousand and three only on a very cursory level addresses the issue is actually states that this is a pretty reform application and therefore the regulations even though she acknowledges that the birth certificate was submitted concurrently and that this is a pretty reform asylum application she nevertheless says that she can rely on the birth certificate but there's no reasoning or rationale that submitted at all by the judge and surely at the june second two thousand  at the bottom the word at the bottom on the birth certificate reference that starts out with the talking about the birth certificate the idea says i want to go by the the objection that's translation the judge then goes on to say i am looking at the document itself talking about the original with the the governmental stamp at any point is there any objection to the document it is later  i'm going to use the original and i can tell from the original that while nobody says hey that's not in the original do it so when you say it was must have been a copy the judge said this is the original copies were handed out to counsel and in fact says this is the original with the stamp and copies are handed out and the only thing anybody says is a cover is i didn't have a copy of the translation then says the translation doesn't show guatemala the judge again says i'm going to refer to the within the four corners of the transcript of the record the judge mentions original nobody says it's not an original it's a copy nobody says which copies what he deemed an original and why did we not accept the judge's statement especially when no one said you're here's the document that was translated here's the translation first document i think that was that's one possible explanation but if we look at it as i do judge was why would we reinterpret the judge used the that it has consequences and second if the word was used more than once wasn't it incumbent upon counsel to clarify the record so your own is using the term original that doesn't really mean this is original document and especially when the judge said i'm going to morning please the court keep the angelus for the attorney general i'm going to go ahead and start just with the issue of the birth certificate yes i'd like to ask you in fact  government would like to go forward with the case without mediation at this point the government agreed to mediation because it you know prefers to give an alien every opportunity that it can and you know if it sees a possibility but in this case  appearance there or something else going on and i think that we we felt that the checks would not be amenable to what the petitioners were asking but we wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt and give them a chance a limited amount of time to discuss the people question given that this was raised in the brief for the be in here would have been incumbent upon someone in your office to go check and see so they could represent to the court what the person whether it was original birth certificate or not and how the judge the idea was using the term original i mean i would i just kind of spout that i would think that one of the easiest things you could do would be to check and find out did we have in the original birth certificate or not and nobody's checked that is what you have to just argue my point that this court upheld the evidence of foreign birth shifts the burden to the petitioner to show that he in fact is not an alien in this case there was a birth certificate in the record which should have shifted the burden of proof to petition if it was admissible it's true but then do you agree if it was not admissible there is no evidence to have shifted the burden well i don't necessarily agree that the birth certificate have do you agree or disagree with the proposition that there have to be some had miscible proper evidence of alien and introduced into the record in order to support her and you can't represent to rest so that way that it was such a proper document as i'm you just don't know beyond what's in the record and what's in the transcript the immigration judges acknowledgment that she felt that it was an original no i can't i can't go beyond that and i guess that his statement that he made where he says my hometown in guatemala that that can't be you well according to the pre reform regulations information as application for asylum and withholding of removal so the regulations are not clear as petitioners has asserted that documents submitted in support of her with her at the same time as and i fly the night at location first time are actually considered part of th proven by the government by clear convincing and unequivocal evidence we don't have that from the record book when you ask you the same question that was posed to so the government can you represent to the court and you know any fashion whether it was or was not in the original birth