self what standard or what burden the court actually subjected the argument to and page two of the court's order the st paragraph specifically lists that the applicant which would be mr garcia of allocating burden that is not what the truck when it hit the trial court used the word demonstrating in the application that's an actual application on behalf of the applicant will to be mr garcia case law isn't very clear though forward with its defense of the claim or are if it's the plaintiff pursuing this particular action so as just a matter of law this order before what you're reviewing fails fits so our nd grievance and with this order is that the law is also unclear as to what actually was the test the court announced at the end of its order that it found that the government had provided plausible explanations for itself it's that they're saying that he lied about the post part but it's not the statement in the post by implication that state was driving the agency in its narrative from the beginning the other problem with that is that in the context of an egypt motion or consideration of  the theory of the plaintiff but in this case we had a deposition by both parties at the same time we proposed chief reynolds in particular and that is in the record before the court and chief reynolds was very clear as to the wrong thing twice and just i'm just having a hard time to say it wasn't reasonable for the government to pursue that don't pose the question well so it to initially oppose it maybe they were right they were right to do so after the deposition of mr reynolds at that point they are aware of the context to which mr garcia has been alleging that is proven true so that i believe that evidence that may have to stop and say well they have never alleged that i could find that either chief reynolds or ca essentially know we made d a mistake this is our st time going through this we have a we have a job posting that literally says all you have to do is be capable of becoming a citizen and so that government's argument is premised upon the statement corroborating his description of the circumstances and right he might have been confused or are made a mistake but is that is that it at that point you're on the burden is to produce evidence that justify why they're there are there are substantially reason or justified it's not just that they have a the speculate or have a theory they have to actually point to some evidence the record that justify them sustaining the argument so at some point himself and there's no variance between all of these various encounters at some point there's no evidence left for the government to point to to say we still just a firefight because they had some point then it really says don't use continuing to district court the united states position in this case was justified and i want to address mr wilson's st point i pointing to the nd to the last line in the district court order in which the district court the government had a reasonable basis both in law and act it was substantially justified in its position in this litigation the any state's certainly proved by a preponderance of the evidence that it this was an issue that mr garcia or the burden of proof on at trial and because of the unique nature of naturalization and the privilege that it confers the supreme court has helped that doubts should be resolved in favor of the united states and against the claimant on the elements of naturalization and the district court also correctly noted the case was almost entirely about mr garcia's credibility and you want to address mr entirely based on his credibility and the rd party witnesses who testify did not corroborate that he didn't understand it didn't read it or didn't other why is no of the requirements that you had to be be each emotion in cases where primarily the district court is assessing credibility these are not appropriate the district court after listening to all of the evidence at the trial but that is perfectly proper evidence and particularly when mr christie important burden of proof of proof on this issue at trial and the united states was challenging his credibility we did put that circumstantial evidence that he should have known the minnesota coast for its requirement for citizenship liar to making his application and prior to admitting his naturalization application and  an interview that came in the form of a can get application which clearly stated that you had to be capable of becoming and u s citizen before you became an ox or a minnesota law also clearly stated that requirement christie had knowledge that other states required officers to be citizens and he didn't ever he acknowledged that he never looked into the requirements in minnesota and certainly by the time he had submitted his naturalization application and by the time he sat for his interview he knew that minnesota required the cers to have there could be naturalized and to be u s citizens and so the idea that there was no evidence and that the record was devoid of evidence that could be used to challenge mr christie is testimony that he didn't know what that he had signed for or didn't read it and wasn't aware of the requirement is just not correct when you look at the record and its entirety and certainly that's what the district court did when making ija decision and this court should affirm that mr wilson suggested indicated that he believed that district court used an improper standard to review the motion what is your position on that concession on that your honor is that if that's not accurate and based on the language that i read directly from  whereas that you get the attorneys these are covered in section twenty or twelve which incorporates the substantial justification language and so yes that that is correct and we don't dispute we did not to point out your honors to the very structure of the statute that was providing for the district courts review here i think that that is important and informs that the need for this court to uphold the court said you know it's important to defer to the district that the trial court on a question of substantial justification and that the text of the statute permits that review and sound else reviews the agency's conduct and then stops the action in returns it agrees to turn the matter to the lower court or back to the agency for completion of citizenship essentially a nd look at whether there's a legal question  and whether the litigation should be pursued and then it doesn't or play have to go to the judge to rule on this case we ended up there but the question is do we have to get there beyond that that the government says that the