and the subsidiary legal issue that the parties are disputing is was mr spalding's perturb knitty established by legitimation under the law of jamaica and what we've been arguing from the beginning is that as a matter of system that was all handwritten in the two thousands they upgraded it to a computer birth record and that is also in the record and that was in two thousand and five and it still is blank for who his father is so this two thousand and five is when he made his application s but there was a but there was also a contemporaneous birth certificate that was issued at the time he was born and it also was blank for the payment he came and what ninety seven eighty seven eighty seven he was eleven at the time yes the petitioner's biological brother in identical circumstances applied for a naturalization certificate same time same agency same facts they grant his brother's deny his and presumably it's because his brother has no criminal record and mr spalding unfortunately does but that's legally irrelevant in determining if he's a derivative citizen and there's really no other explanation as to why crandon one wasn't and i think his brother may have been granted to see to citizenship by mistake or certificate by mistake that's certainly what the government is arguing but there's no evidence in the record of that there's no testimony or deposition and could be i was just making a point because your mother explanation for it yes i mean we definitely agree that it's not and sometimes the government makes decisions and they go back and look at it and say hey we made a mistake i'm not saying that it's impossible but that's what happened but that there's no evidence in the record to justify that and if the court was concerned with that issue then i think the proper move is to remain this to the district court because the reason why the remaining procedure was put in there is because there is no discovery in immigration court so there was really no way for us to get pieces of evidence from his brother's file to see why he was naturalized if this gets remanded to the district court we can depose the you know the the the brothers petition we can get some documents and put in the record exactly why the brother was granted we don't think the court needs to do that because as we've argued they don't know who his father is so how could his paternity have been established if they don't even know who his father is but if the court is concerned and isn't fully convinced on that then we would argue remain and is the proper course because then we can have a discovery process to explore why his brother was found to be this court to review is whether both of the petitioners parents are u s citizens before march seventeenth one thousand nine hundred four when the petitioner turned eighteen both parties agree they were not there for because the petitioner was legitimized on january under the jamaican legitimation act which i don't want to waste this court's time reading which is found in the administrative records upon marriage the child was legitimated under jamaican law and this court has found that has interpreted that law but the well the case that you reference was a jamaican marriage it was it was some lived in jamaica was not as opposed to the united states i believe the record shows that this that the marriage what occurred in jamaica as well you you say that the record here shows the marriage was done in jamaica i believe that's correct your honor but i thought it was after she'd come to the united states came to the united states on her and she would return to jamaica and eighty nine i believe that's what the record reflects is that she returned to jamaica brother but there's absolutely nothing in the record that is that is relevant to the at the three elements that must mean that this case whether both parents naturalized before he was eighteen and he was a lawful permanent resident the fact of the matter is his father did not naturalized until march eighteenth two thousand and six many years after he turned eighteen i believe it was twelve years after that there are some your position that we look to jamaican law it's completely irrelevant whether in jamaica its records reflect the father's presence or the or the legitimation it's just the operation of jamaican law and that's quite clear it is your honor and this court and obviously not in presidential decisions but has looked to the birth certificate for reliability and those addition clear shared last name on the birth certificate shared paternity with siblings and in fact if the of record when you look at his and six hundred it says is your mother your your father and he responds yes so we have a birth certificate that has the father's last name he's it's irrefutable that his brother shares paternity with the father and he even represents in his and six hundred a formal government document that his mother's husband is his father so for those reasons the government there the only ruling consistent with this court here's one issue that i did want to raise and i will be filing a twenty jury letter there was a decision from this court last month jane v sessions that dealt with a somewhat similar issue where the court found despite the fact that neither of the petitioner in that case his biological parents were u s citizens that the petitioner acquired citizenship through  what they termed as a parent despite the fact that that person was not his biological father so i think that that shows that the court has recognized that legal determinations of citizenship don't rest purely on the biology of who someone's father is in that case it was found that the petitioner acquired citizenship through someone who had no biological relationship and was not the was not the father so we're not disputing the biological