please the court lea phillips on behalf of the plaintiff then jackson we are asking this court to reverse the decision of the agency hearing officer which was affirmed by the district court for two primary reasons number one the decision of the hearing officer failed to credit substantial evidence that my client and jackson was in fact a resident of the hopi partition lands in nineteen in december of  did in fact exist and in fact the agency reversed denials of his sister's application and his brother's application in one thousand nine hundred and six and certified them for benefits from the same homesite that the hearing officer in this case found in two thousand and fifteen not to have existed the nd issue that we think requires reversal is that the hearing officer in this case made his decision based on adverse credibility findings my client then jackson is sister helen williams who was a certified earlier after her denial was reversed and his aunt peggy nelson who also applied for was found credible and sort of lied for benefits all made were that peggy nelson the aunt who had applied found to be credible and certified and who sister helen williams who applied initially denied but then that was reversed when the agency itself at her hearing in  and six found her testimony to be credible her brother's testimony because of all and there was a field investigation report which the attorney for the agency found to be credible and as a result reversed the initial denial for both dan's sister and her brother the hearing officer in this case though simply made a conclusory statement that he found helen williams the sister who had been sort of biden found credible previously in one thousand nine hundred and six he found that substituted the names he had exactly the same finding that helen williams and peggy nelson their testimony was questionable and doubtful and he just simply found that mr jackson's testimony without any explanation was not residency again of course the standard years did mr jackson demonstrate an intent to return to reside on his reservation homesite and if he had that intent that he manifest or demonstrated in in a meaningful way in this situation we have a man who worked for the federal government of the bureau of indian affairs for twenty years he was assigned to multiple duty stations in arizona and new mexico each time he completed his duty assignment and returned to his home side on the reservation and in fact the big concern and the hearing officer found was there was a period of time in one thousand nine hundred and seventy one through seventy five where mr jackson resided in new mexico in albuquerque he initially was working for the b i a in chile on the navajo reservation he went to gallup new mexico for another duty assignment and was there for approximately a year and a half and then when he and his wife at that time were just deciding to have a family and she became pregnant they moved to albuquerque because his wife was from albuquerque and they were able to reside with her family in albuquerque from one thousand nine hundred and seventy one until seventy five when they divorced  jackson after the divorce returned to the reservation and now took a position and finance on the navajo reservation but it being his two children from albuquerque the only reason that he was in albuquerque though was because of the birth of their children and the fact that they had a place to stay where they were didn't need to be the bio rent so they resided with her family until the divorce ended the relationship with jackson returned to fort defiance and completed his his service to the  owe each time returning to his home side on the rez on the job joint use area and ultimately when he retired he returned and continues to reside there at the home side that is now about five miles from the original home site if you look at all of the evidence just history each time he was assigned to a particular duty station he at a certain treat of time there in gallup he was in new mexico initially and in you like arizona when you move to new mexico within a short period of time you have to register your vehicle there you have to acquire a new mexico driver's license and when you're working during the week at least and being paid by the ira in gallup in mexico it's not uncommon in fact i would say it's normal that you would have a bank account there  it when he was transferred to albuquerque israel his residency was albuquerque for the work week but it was still and he returned in the just what he's uncontroverted to all witnesses that he returned on a regular basis may change his residency on the have helped take care that homesite and he and the testimony there was no testimony to the contrary that he regularly returned even after he was divorced and continued to live in new mexico as soon as he was able to office agency's representative he confirmed in his testimony in our hearing in one thousand in two thousand and fifteen that yes in fact they had gone out and reversed their decision as to helen williams and as to thomas jackson my client's brother mexico driver's license i mean that's cool but again anyone who's ever moved to another state knows that that is required by the state law to have a license registration vehicle in that state and if you're going to live there and work there it's not unreasonable to think that you're i'm sorry you're on our end it suddenly got very quiet could you repeat your question you know the military has various definitions and they will be that he was a resident of new mexico for certain purposes certainly paying taxes for of the laws from their state the person may not also at the same time be a resident of the home side we have brief that question your honor but i'm not sure that the court needs to decide that specific issue here because i think what the court should do is look to the relocation regulations themselves which requires legal residence and then the preamble to the regulations given that we define what legal residence and so that's well he he i think what we're arguing is not whether he was a state resident of new mexico or not we're arguing that under the under the relocation regulation she was a legal resident of new mexico within the meaning of the regulation or where he intended to reside combined with the manifestations of that intent which is what is listed in the preamble to the regulation which is on page forty two  still have to intend to live on hopi partition land and manifest that intent and what we have from mr jackson it is a good intent to move to albuquerque to live near his wife's family now that's neither for economic nor educational reasons which ought to which are the two reasons that are listed or frequently given for for residence being temporarily away from partition land right he intended to live in new mexico  tied to mexico because his children were still living there and it's consistent with the fact that he intended to live in mexico to be near his family the fact that his children are there is consistent with both miss williams testimony it is correct that he testified that he visited his mother's home site as frequently as he could in every and every weekend after nine hundred and seventy three but he could still visit socially and intend to live in new mexico and that's what the hearing officer found that is because of all of the objective documentary evidence showing that he intended to live in new mexico now that the example that mr phillips points year that he was required to obtain a driver's license and car registration in new mexico by law that but we also have examples and our nearest prior decisions of where and this is this is not something that any are considered because they were these decisions weren't given shown here at the time of the hearing but we have an instance an applicant applicant full video which is in the supplemental excerpts of record where she divorced her husband or separated from her husband and then actually changed her driver's license and her her vehicle registration back to her mother's home and that was sufficient the hearing officer found there to demonstrate her intent to move back to the home right here when mr dodson separated from his wife and said he had no where to say he didn't transfer his vehicle or his driver's license back to arizona or back to his his mother's reported home site he could have done so if you was not in fact living anywhere in new mexico at that sure but the there is no testimony that he then intended to change his residence back to his mother's home site and also there is a requirement that the applicant needed to have lived on the  year before december nd one hundred and seventy four so he would have had to move back been separated and there's no evidence of a testimony on this in the records but he would have had to have moved back to his mother's home site a full year or change his legal residency back to his mother so cite a full year before the december one hundred and seventy four date in order to be eligible for benefits so but again he didn't even testify that he intended to move bad in fact record that when he transferred his employment so from he worked in shanley which is an hour and a half away from hopi purchasing land and and then continuously transferred  away and again that was to live near his wife's family so for these reasons there's more that's more than the fission evidence or reasonable fact finder to to determine that it supports the conclusion that he e important things for this court to look at when one reviewing the agency's decision again are not what mr jackson could've proven in the st instance or not not you know not what the court would do if it was standing in the national fact finding capacity but whether there was the dental evidence or the hearing officer or she finds that mr jackson intended to live in new mexico and given all of the documentary evidence  kept his employment there until one thousand nine hundred and seventy six and then his initial intent on moving there which was to be closer to his wife's family it wasn't that he didn't have adequate economic opportunities closer to hopi partition all of those things instance that miss williams obtained benefits on the basis of state agencies attorney certification it wasn't on that it wasn't on the basis of any findings made by the hearing officer so no hearing officer and when they were occupied it just simply shows that there were remains of structures and we do have another document in the record at your fifty which in fact says that mr william it was an interview of miss william her and and in fact it was conducted it was a field investigation conducted by on your sort of occasion department and what they've found in speaking with miss william's mother is that they indication that she understood enough to list the two sisters somehow his two sisters were were on view numeration whereas mr jackson wasn't so it's you know it given the circumstances and the fact that his lawyer had to repeatedly look at her notes couldn't remember different years and in fact said she couldn't keep all the years together and the fact that the testimony concerning the ho s indicated that it was an extremely large home site that was actively used year round near two roads that both mr jackson and miss playing testified the they drove their cars  get to the home site it was within a couple miles of a windmill which was connected by a road when there was a dirt road where a wagon trail was still acceptable by motor vehicles there were several one hundred head of cattle there were two hope in the house a crawl an arbor or a field that was the size of a football field that was and then all of those all of that testimony concerning that huge scope of the evidence of structures and that many structures would have would have appeared even under the rubric advanced by the nest deposition where she did testify that they looked at aerial photos and then they went out they interviewed neighbors to find out where other where the investigator from the agency went out and spoke to helen william's mother louise helen wayne's mother always said her family previously had a home side in the sixty's but that is not the end jackson's mother his where the charlie's family came from but helen testified as did her brother thomas that they all lived together the two mothers and the father with the children in the one home site and it was not as if this was a bus metropolis bursting with with people this was a remote area that had what was described by all the witnesses as in trails leading out of the home site no rows roads jackson in what he demonstrated you time and time again is when he left he left always for employment under the government's argument that no one could ever qualify for relocation benefits if they were forced to take a job out of arizona and we know that there are multiple decisions from the courts but delany mike they're all cited in our behaviors where people lived in california and other states for years as long as they maintained their residence and returned and demonstrated return multiple times but he did not demonstrate an intent to return and reside there because he bought a house in california mr jackson never rented a house never bought a house he continued to return he commuted when he would to wharton generally he commuted an hour to have from the homes he commuted when he worked in forty five as he commuted from the side when he when he came back there was only working do not and when he retired he returned to the home side again to live and that's where he is today so it his intent has been manifested over and over and over again so i would submit that the the the government is supposition about why he stayed in