that was not there was some technical issue that was not recorded and that's why there was an error and that the witness for the government correct yes you are i was that point how was his testimony prejudicial to absence of his testimony your honor that was what was what did you lose by not having that testimony in the record because that was one of the bases of denial of relief but what about his what was it about his testimony that was helpful to you that you no longer had the advantage of your honor since the old record was not all by level produced no didn't get a chance to cross examine or didn't exist and didn't get a chance to confront application by himself but he was living in a place where all other nepalese applicants are living in the same building and he prepares a application by himself using the same computer that other people also have commit any fraud but as he was a victim of the communist party of nepal maoist and there were many other applicants who has a sim kind of fear so there might have some coincident or similarities initially approved but that was it evoked later on he was placed on the mobile proceedings so let me make sure i understand how this whole thing came about your client obtained asylum from  through the administrative process is that correct yes you are right and then later shortened i guess about a year later it was determined that his application was similar to other application yes or no and the agency revoked his asylum yes correct yes and then he about a year later he reapply yes you are before the immigration judge yes essentially with the same application but and some additional declarations or whatever right right yes sure he would do that and then and then we came out with a decision that said d h has couldn't revoke asylum yes right and the only and only an immigration officer right where the i j was determining one whether or not terminations of asylum was proper this is one of the clear this is one of the claim we're making on and i use it and then there was a credibility determination on the existing application is that yes that's right so so we're requesting to reverse the denial and to reinstate the grant of asylum for the petition committed fraud right yes or it's based on in incredibility that there was in fraud in the application one of the reason he said there was fraud in the application i'm sorry yes is that right that's what it ok to mine now drab because they were living in the same place you are now the government in this case says look there's substantial evidence supporting the finding that there was fraud in the application that's what the regulation says there is a showing  fraud in the aliens application the magic of the i j a found that i understand that your client has an expert explanation other people copy his materials but isn't there substantial evidence to support the finding of the idea here that there stuff and then going back just pis his question we know there was some bad stuff for your client what the officer said what's the good stuff that would make us say wow the i j a really got this wrong provide really you under the  so basically we're requesting to demand the matter to begin to call the get this witness and have her testify before the judge and create a full record what was the fraud that was in the application well it was nearly identical wording and essentially the saying same exact series of events between three different asylum applications including the petitioners asylum application let me let me i just want to try and make sure  understand the process here yes little gets a little confusing for me you know i'm not on top of the procedural niceties of all these immigration cases but  it was the agency that terminated his original grant asylum is that correct that's correct your honor but is as was mentioned earlier this right the court determined that the c i s is not able to terminate has to go before an i  correct that's correct ok and then the i j a realizes that well there is this prior grant of asylum that couldn't be terminated by the and so now i have to look at is that is that what happened that's exactly happening on or the idea it had to essentially do two things first had to determine whether or not there was a preponderance of the evidence if the h s minutes burden to show that there was fraud in that previous asylum application and then also to consider the new asylum application or any other basis for relief that the richest in or want to say the first question up for the i j a was whether or not there was fraud in the application that's correct ok so that it's circuit says that  when you interpret the term fraud in the application you have to it's basically fraud you know intentional fraud you know there's fraud you know the representations are faults that's correct your honor it was that standard applied here and should that standard is that the standard that applies to the regulation whether or not there needs to be no i mean there had to be known that there was fraud in the application and its argument that in fact you don't need to have it doesn't have to be knowing for fraud it just has to be existence of fraud in the asylum application let me ask you about that because there's a difference between something being false and something being fraudulent right that's correct or false is could be an honest mistake  someone could write a us and think it means austria when they were meant to say australia in their application fraud implies there was an intent to deceive the reviewer and so if it says fraud in the application there has to be some intent to trick somebody deceive the people to deceive the person reviewing it would you agree with that that's correct your honor but i would answer that the reason why it's different for the  phase of determining whether or not the silence should be terminated at that phase is because it's just sort of the preservation of the process if there was fraud that existed in the application it's sort of an attack on the asylum process the alien still has the opportunity to go ahead and say hey this wasn't knowing this was this was something that somebody else submitted on my behalf and that's that's what that sort of scenario is set up for is a scenario where somebody submits documents that were fraudulent that they didn't know were fraudulent but the rest of their case is solid and the rest of the case is not fraudulent but that's at the asylum phase phase of determining whether or not there is fraud in the silane it's enough to say that it doesn't have to be because for one thing no matter what standard you applied in this case it's clear that the petitioner would have known that there was fraud in his is initial asylum application let me ask you this i was going to my next round of questions did the i j make application asylum application and the immigration judge found that based on what he presented in that declaration which was had the same exact language and other declarations that it would have made first of all it would he would have known it because one of the other declarations was filed before the petition was even done with his declaration so that would be an indication that he would have known that since his entire silent claim is based on that declaration those series of events that he would have known that there was fraud in that declaration and he did and the i j found other instances of why the petitioner wasn't credible both and sort of the defense of whether there's fraud in the patient but also his new opinion is credibility on the first application just general i guess general credibility and then he seems to blend lead over into everything that he does after that well i think maybe the reason why doesn't your honour's because there's such a clear clear appearance of fraud in that first application and that applications exactly what's presented in the second in the immigration hearing and that may be w you don't have that clear you know demarcation between the credibly kind of credibility standard that would apply in the actual proceedings and what was considered in terminating the initial asylum application but it's clear that it is to different two different animals if you will one is supposed to be good v h s was there a preponderance of the evidence to find that there was fraud in the asylum application such that the petition wouldn't have been eligible for asylum if but for the fraud and i think it's pretty clear in this case since the fraud was basically that his entire it wasn't this isn't a sick situation where you have one witness or somebody supplied a statement or some sort of documentation to the petitioner for the asylum application and it turns out that one document was fraudulent and the entire claim is not actually fraudulent but just that one particular document is that's not the case here because the fraud was in the declaration and that pretty much is for his entire claim so there are two different standards but in this case the immigration judge was correct in upholding the terminations of th also submitted new documents that were not submitted before to bolster the silent claim before the i j a and even those documents were found to have some more identical language that calls into question the validity of those those supporting documents i'm talking about letters from people back in the paul that were saying hey this this is what occurred but their language sounded the same throughout and when mr lo was confronted with that he said yeah there's some similarities here and didn't have an adequate explanation for why you had that same language and in addition he submitted a document from the hospital or a medical document that was supposed to corroborate one of his  claim of being injured by terrorists but the problem was that medical documents that stated that he was injured by a road traffic road traffic accident by bicycle which would have been consistent with what he said so those despite the existence what do you understand that second prong to be that the i j a was returned i think with i think that second prong is even if even if there is fraud in the application you have to go you have to determine whether or not that fraud would have made the applicant ineligible for asylum but for the fraud i think that's what the second prong is that he's referring to there pretty clear that he would have been eligible for asylum at the time of the application with that fraud in the application point you were pointing to the initial application right  there's another situation that occurs in these fraud claims and that is where the where the i g makes a finding that the application is frivolous right that that's correct and that's that's not that's not here but there are the i g would have to find that he knew the statements were file i believe that's correct right and that's with the initial application correct that i believe i believe that's correct right so why doesn't that s that what you're trying to preserve here is not whether or not the individuals eligible for the it's an initial determination just whether or not there was fraud in the asylum process or and it's to protect that process and then there can be you know a follow on determination whether or not there was no i mean there are what not but it's see it's a different standard than the determination of credibility i guess is i guess is what the board is getting to m p s age ok anything else because explained before the immigration judge that he was living in a public place where all other applicants were living and they might have access on his record so the school should consider the circumstances