the same district court and that should result in this court possessing a definite in firm conviction that an error has been committed in this is required reversible to govern in this case board the burden of clear and convincing demonstration and purpose of its entire case is reliance on agent wakefield he was their only friendly witness the district court properly after he had misled the district court essentially didn't rely on his testimony at all that was the case the government tried their entire closing argument in writing his agent wakefield the district court rejected agent wakefield and on the other side of it there's just a ton of evidence that a raise in his very well cross correlated and supports each other piece of evidence by that correlation there is the fact that the us baptism which is an evidential really significant fact this court there is the california delayed registration of birth there's the daughter's grams of derivative citizenship which undermine dr veiga is substantial credible evidence of citizenship there is the mother's testimony of california live birth there is the answer testimony she witnessed the california out in revealing this evidence to the extent that there were at st credibility findings made that is squarely within the province of the district court so it's not the levy i think to the extent that the district court made i believe the findings i don't know that sitting here as appellate judges we can do too much with that so keep those arguments in mind when you are trying to i think this court should reverse the case as opposed to sending it back your honor but the best argument for sending it back is the court didn't give real weight to the california way registration of birth because it ignored this court's mandate to consider the us baptism the court also did not give way to gretchen peters expert testimony about trans national families the court said the killers testimony was irrelevant which contradicts this court's remained order to begin with and it was irrelevant because she didn't interview people but that had nothing to do with the premise of the testimony th testimony was about the prevalence of the practice of dual national registration of american born children in trans national mexican american families that testimony was simply disregarded it was disregarded twice now and so that testimony didn't judge logan in fact right in his word of i'm sorry to be considered it didn't actually offer some commentary as to why you thought that it was in the book well not isn't this very different between whether or not he's considered it a midterm mission not give any effect to he doesn't say i have considered the fact that half of these trans national families in fact have the store registration he considered to be quote logically irrelevant and i would say the concept of logical irrelevance is sort of a consideration consisted of saying it was logically irrelevant which gives it no weight and also consisted separately of saying that it was irrelevant because she didn't interview anybody which is really such a stark failure to grapple with what the evidence is as to basically reject so are you saying this is a violation of the rule of mandate or it is clear as it relates to the factual finding of the weight of that particular evidence it's both it's both the district court didn't do what it was told to do and then not doing what it was told to do it therefore committed clear error because it failed to give any weight to its act which this court already determined it needed to assign weight to in which if given a weight would necessarily lead one to the conclusion that the record i equivocal and the record could not be clear and convincing that is almost beyond reasonable doubt that the government approved mexican birth where half of the families in this circumstance and again the government didn't didn't really were but this witness this government the government did not put in a witness against th fact the government chose to develop the case this way judge aware and that's the record is that the record in any of these cases that's the way the record lay in this case likewise but the fact of the baptism is especially troubling and again it is both a violation of the mandate rule and to the point of  literal refusal to consider the fact of baptism that we already know that him the st go around the district court decided not to honor the u s government's own stipulation of the one thousand nine hundred and seventy two baptism and it continues to point judge and when that there are the mixture of facts that are in arguable here that were handed for consideration and some facts are subject to a credibility determination but i would submit that the district court cannot credibility determine its way to the government carrying the burden we're all it has  mexican birth certificate and that's really all it has and i would also say that in terms of the analytic weighing that was to be done it's one thing to say that on the scales of justice you have a rock here and you have a rock here a mexican birth certificate is  true it's saying yes there is a mexican birth certificate and forty seven percent of the time in five hundred and fifty thousand dollars transnational families that wouldn't be logically relevant to finding that the child was born in mexico so it's a very powerful fact it's one the district court chose not to grapple with and the district court here really did i think walk to some degree even instead of naismith territory it went against the principle of party presentation of the case the court the entire u s government case was egypt we feel the court rejected vision wakefield it was on trouble by that it stepped over it rejected a few lation this court reversed the rejection of that stipulation and the court even after that mandate even after that mandate the district court continues to spend significant analytic weight with some support in it from the united states government attacking the two thousand and two dismal record it has no relevance to anything it was twelve years after the california delayed registration of birth that is violating the principle of party presentation it's not fair and it does nothing here to avoid the clear the clear inference of clear i'd like to reserve my last two minutes if i could please your honour's yes and but let me ask you one question before you do that because you the core of your argument is  the district court put together in way which side has met their burden of your judgment i think there's about three parts of that question st of all yes the district court says it shows that he spent time in both countries but the district court did not address and did not cite any of the three cases that create a direct inference that because there's baptismal certificate there was a birth in the nation of the baptism that was argued the court sidestepped that for number one number two it violates the mandate rule because the additional piece of evidence your honor just pointed out  all pieces of evidence that were so clear and convincing ensuring the government's burden but the district court assigned them literally no wait the st time around and said my case is the mexican birth certificate so i think that gives a strong suggestion both that they aren't clear and convincing proof of anything and nd of all th united states he's not here mr to be has a heavy burden to show a clear ear to identify issues that will be in this court to have a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has testimony i missed can or directly rebut the reliability of the mexican birth registration you have over two hundred thousand families who are still simply did exactly  sense testimony it considered it and a lie research to the facts of this case girl research was specifically as to foreign and national parents that give birth to their children in the united states have that child registered in the united states and then returned to mexico to have the child registered with the hopes of giving them dual citizenship and that's not what happened here mr to be escapees however and to to your in greek even if that's what happened here even if her testimony involves trans national families and their registration patterns the this can identify a trend that might even a majority trend moreover her testimony was merely one piece of evidence we need against how are full and concrete evidence up the mexican birth of the mexican registration card up to the sworn statement and he made in his daughter's citizenship application that he was a mexican national previously the mexican birth certificate is uncontested in the record as to the admissibility and accuracy further as the as the trial court determined that paired with the weight of the other evidence of mexican birth there then brought the country b and registered there almost contemporaneously here you have an eighteen year difference of british tradition that only comes up after mr to be had an encounter with immigration and was no longer  critical stipulation for the possession or scase which demonstrates that he was in the united states baptize in the united states on the year of his birth and to the court said that i'm accepting the party's stipulation to the fact of petitioners baptism and that's at twelve but yet n e r thirteen but this report concluded absent the record a baptism there is no other persuasive evidence of record that shows petitioner was present in the united states in one thousand and seventy two dollars so that's completely counter to the factual stipulation that the district court except it why isn't that a lol sufficient to inaccurate if the court really in fact except that the stipulation said how do you respond to that the core absolutely did except the stipulation and there's a very logical i interpretation as to what  perhaps where the court was talking about there is no evidence of his birth and it's very apparent to the government that he was born in mexico and immediately south of the united states were in  colorado and iowa colorado mexico and then six months later his baptism was registered in los angeles so your if the if the district court had said look i consider the stipulation that considered to palliate the record all that expert testimony fact testimony and so forth and i find that the evidence is convincing was born in mexico six months later he was baptised in los angeles but that wasn't the court's reasoning it's that there no evidence no other persuasive evidence of record that shows he was present in the united states in one thousand and seventy two so i don't know if the district court is accepting the argument that you're raising now which is that he was born in mexico six months later requires more than just a simple yes or now however what the stipulation is is that you've gone on a timeline and ultimately we're going to start at the inception of my argument this is a question of whether mr disappear was born in the united states or not inference here because there's a factual misstatement in the district court's ruling and so it helps me to see the context of the parties arguments so i take it by your answer that that specific argument wasn't made i understand the whole you know dot on the timeline issue that's correct and as you know to shoot through your point it doesn't require this court to make an inference because the underlying question the essential question  is mr to be aboard of the united states and the overwhelming weight of evidence as determined by the trial where zero times found that the evidence of his mexican birth outweighed the other evidence expressly the evidence that was beating up on the two thousand to twelve years later documents about baptism that the government introduced if you're not questioning the veracity of the baptismal stipulation the whole point is to undermine the best possible stipulation into  states government that mr tapia felix was carried across the border six months after birth if you look at the record of the trial of this case agent wakefield's improperly coerced affidavit from the in our toes illiterate mother actually says he crossed the border thirty nine days after birth so if you cross the border thirty nine days after birth i guess that would place him in the country four and a half months if born in mexico before the los angeles baptism so i would think the government to be consistent having tried an entire case premised on the idea of a thirty nine d border crossing for purpose of squaring nationalisation with this day the district court only was improperly questioning the stipulation but was specially wrong because contrary to the arguments just made mr tapia by extension would have been in the argument in the country for four months before the baptis so the government here is and was lee refashioning it's theater he's and the district court i would really submit to all of your honors to the point of judge paul where's prior question it's one thing to say i dealt with it but when the logic of what you express and reemphasize those pursuant to this court's directed freedom to revaluate some of the testimony i would say the way it played out in this case judge bowler let me explain why it actually say the answer that was standing the framing of that question would be no i the judge wrote a very carefully reasoned carefully written fifteen page order with tons of cases and tons of facts in the st time when he is the u s district judge dealt with this matter very seriously and very grave a very grave matter and when he did so he did not accord those matters weight i think you have to take seriously the judge logan two thousand and seventeen did not accord the matters upon which the government would now spell mexican birth weight and so when this court says we want you to just do what you did but do these two other things i don't think this court was saying in the mandate rule says go back and redecide everything from scratch and that's what the government's position is and that's laden in the line of reasoning the government proposes and if that were true judgeable where they got the court to do that the court could just as easily exhume to destroy testimony of age wave which frankly if we go back for a rd time i'm going to have to brief always you wait fields testimony squares that the argument counsel just made and so we're sort of endlessly going around and around the i think this court limited and remitted said it's what you did judge logan plus two things