thank you our may please the courts like hers are two minutes for a bottle of this and respectfully request that this court reversed the judgment of the district court on appeal the government does not defend the district court's rationale for granting other government's motion for judgment on the pleadings and instead asks this court to affirm on two different bases the district court below granted the government's motion and revoke ms yet as citizenship based on three statutory and regulatory provisions the district court misapplied each of these provisions which require that a conviction exist at the time of natural the government's alternative bases for a firm and both suffer the same flaw they ask the court to wade into contested issues and resolve those contested facts in the government's favor the government's request is at odds with its burden and the naturalization case to prove that case by clear unequivocal and convincing evidence that does not leave the issue in doubt the government's arguments are also at odds with the rule twelve c standard the government asks the courts to affirm st based on count four which is for illegal for care meant of naturalization below the character ins was permitted but not required to consider conduct preceding the five year moral character period a farming based on count four but does that and i ask a question does that mean had sort of thinking about this case in terms of line drawing it seems like the way the statutes fit together is you have the requirements for naturalization you have the five year period you have a catchall and the government can do its due diligence people have to answer answer questions you know law honestly and you know then afterwards you before and what happens after you're naturalized by sort of inappropriate looking back when and it's not clear that what is intended by the statute that makes sense it does and i agree your honor that because the catchall moral character provision is discretionary the government's burden feaking be naturalization on that provision should the government should be held to that very high standard of proving its case by clear unequivocal and convincing evidence because the presumption should be that as i'm a revision in the the natural at the time of naturalization by reference to those naturalization  her application and this theory is insufficient to sustain the judgment because viewing the pleadings in the light most favorable to the government was at least an inquiry notice of her involvement in the attack the government anything had changed since her prior disclosures and we also don't know what she disclosed in her application for permanent resident status because the government did not attach that application to the complaint so the record is actually incomplete but yet even if i and s were to decide to consider ms yet as pre regulatory period conduct it was still obligated to consider whether her conduct during the statutory period exhibited a reform proceedings the court is considering whether the applicant was eligible for naturalization and santa maria aims how that part of that analysis is is looking at the applicant's statutory period moral character and so therefore because the analysis here is whether as yet as dan was eligible for naturalization the court must look at the full picture just as the court has directed district courts to do and naturalization proceedings so are you saying that the same standard should apply  naturalization and the naturalization case the analysis of eligibility is the same yes however and again actual as ation case the burden is on the government to prove by clear unequivocal and unequivocal and convincing evidence that the applicant that the at the citizen was not eligible at the time of naturalization can i ask a question so i'm still confused in the requirements for naturalization section subsection he says in determining whether and what has been the burden of those that wish you good moral character and other qualifications the attorney general shall not be limited to the applicant's conduct this section that i just quoted which is under the requirements of naturalization section and that seems to me to just be illogical and it seems to me to be circular and maybe dangerous because statute doesn't say that and i'm wondering if we're just making this more complicated than it you know that it needs to be you know there are sections that deal with how you do naturalized someone on the basis  misrepresentations there's other categories that are sort of per se lead to prohibitions but this section itself using it as part of the units realization think i agree that reevaluating the discretionary decision at the de naturalization stage it is concerning presumption that the government has already exercised its discretion in deciding to allow someone to naturalize you don't see it as opening the door to do naturalizing folks who have been here twenty years and they the briefs is that the government really doesn't just start up again the government doesn't defend the district court's decision points to count for the other count as an alternative basis for us to affirm but as i understand listening to you and reading the cases in the regs that it would be extremely difficult if not truly an overstretch to say as a matter of law that the government is nonetheless entitle to judgment that right that's perhaps the day that says he has to be an opportunity for her to be heard before the district court that is you're from the government thank you good morning may it please the court congress requires that individuals who seek the high privilege of citizenship must scrupulously comply with every rule governing the naturalization process you don't have to be perfect to become a united states citizen but you can't lie or omit information and you especially can't commit war crimes and then lie or a myth that information c m e yet is in did exactly that and the district court was right to  citizenship for three reasons st she made willful misrepresentations on her naturalization application nd she didn't have good moral character at the time she naturalized and rd latches categorically doesn't apply and is the district court found  or concealment of a material fact we believe that all of the elements of this count are established in the pleadings st of all there are misrepresentations in the naturalization application and all excerpt record pages five dollars she states that she had not committed a crime for which she had not been arrested and that she had no military service we know now that both those representations were both false misrepresentations were also will sought to natural law be so when your honor she had committed a crime at the time because she had committed the murders i mean whether she thinks it was justified or her understanding of what the question is on the four men to that that's a separate matter but if she had committed a crime we know this objectively and the government to you know believes that based on the pleadings she also subjectively knew that she had committed a crime  prohibitions and so this is something these crimes are different than what someone might not know to be criminal like for example failing to pay a particular tax or theology rather really matter how is that true you have a twenty year old woman she's in the middle of th are not condoning it's horrific in every way but you know i was just concerned that there are true is a short while accurate doesn't really capture the sort of reality of what people eighty six you know the complaint exhaustively chronicles each sordid aspect of these crimes which i you know won't go over exhaustively but it's pages twenty three dollars to twenty eight dollars of the excerpts of record it's also in the bosnian court's judgment that's exhibit b to the complaint and i think that the specifics of her crimes demonstrates exceptionally poor character that dug her a pretty deep hole as far as proving good moral character or demonstrating at the time that she  naturalized so that includes facts which the fact that she attacked the village with the intent to leave no survivors that she advocated killing all of the prisoners of war and civilians that were lined up against that wall the fact that she was part of the firing squad and  a focus on the broad nature of the inquiry in the form that was it at issue in that case and so this court agreed that it was incredible for the applicant they are to assert that he didn't believe the correct was very clear that given the importance of united states citizenship apple can have to meet every requirement that has been set out to obtain that citizenship  misguided sense that the good moral character provision is discretionary thus on a rule twelve c the court must withhold judgment on the pleadings because it must assume that discretionary determination would have gone in her favor but naturalization does not have  purely discretionary component like for example permanent residence or for cancellation or removal which is another immigration benefit this court sees frequently and which does have a also a good moral character component a good moral character analysis it is a cabin and flexibility and there are outside limits and so whatever cases might be near the line in this case is not one of them they were crimes are beyond the pale this is not as a case involving simple assault or dui or something of that kind occurring before the beginning of this statutory period and i would point to this court's decision in hussein for that reading of how these provisions  naturalized you know notwithstanding the fact that they you know they they met all of the requirements for naturalization because the argument is well you must not have a good moral character he just didn't know about it you know now something happens ten years after you've been naturalized and we go back and think god you were bad and now you're bad then god or or moral character we're going to institute the naturalisation  matter of not likelihood necessarily but but you know something that tensional it could happen the one thing i would point out your honor is that generally with your argument did what it is what i've described hypothetically possible i don't think that's possible your honor respectfully because of the additional protections that are in place in the natural station proceedings so having to get up an affidavit of good cause from someone at the agency which which we have here you have to get the authorization of the u s attorney by statute yes your honor we did on both counts for and on count five the district or didn't he didn't follow this path though is that career that's correct because both counts request identical relief which is a revocation of her order of naturalization the just record after granting natural or granting our judgment on count four thought it was unnecessary to reach count five but it has been it was brief below and it has been up here as well but i guess the point is is that the district court sort of went off on i guess was an easier clearer half to entering a judgment as a matter of  law against a pro se defendant their right you are i mean i'm not sure if i if i necessarily agree about it being an easier path but i well know she was get the conviction and he said that's the end of the story correct i you know the district court cited useful provisions you know as we point out in our brief up here  you know they demonstrate the immigration and nationality nationalities and nationality acts special disapproval of things like motor of false statements persecution and although we believe that the district courts use those improperly to find that they were per se ours which isn't the case because her conviction came after naturalization we believe that those provisions are still relevant and you know lester part should have been looking at them but we believe you know i just wasn't listening to this government and as i mentioned earlier when i read this it just strikes me as really difficult to say that on this on the pleadings just as they are that as a matter of previous pre application created pre refugee status as a matter of law means that in the five year period she can show good moral character just the just seems to that given what's gone on that's going on here it just seems that she should have an opportunity to be heard she may have a difficult case but it strikes me as is is that as hard  that she has admitted or has constructively admitted in her case she had three chances below to respond to our complaint her answer her st response to her twelve the motion and then her nd amended response e c f entries five hundred and twenty seven and thirty one below but also i would argue that this was her chance to respond to these allegations that the government has brought about how she lacks good moral character how she's made misrepresentations and you know anything related to the other three counts for which we did not move on for judgment on the pleadings so that was her chance to deny for example that she lacked good moral character but we didn't see anywhere in those three documents that she did actually deny that fact willful misrepresentation count on the district court did not that count below after finding that it was moot and therefore this court should should decline to reach that count as well but if it does willfulness requires knowledge of the fal that's true understanding maria aims and yet is and is entitled to an opportunity to put forward evidence of her good moral character during the statutory period it is impossible to resolve this case on a twelve c because  was denied that opportunity that would include not just considering a conduct during the period but also the full facts and circumstances surrounding her involvement in the tree scene attack the fact that she was twenty years old and the only woman in her unit that she had family members who had previously been killed during the civil war that she'd been sexually assaulted on multiple occasions by members of her unit and that she was ordered to participate in the attacks he isn't is entitled to an opportunity to put forward that evidence and additional evidence of her good moral character during the statutory period we respectfully request that this court reversed the judgment of the district court and remained the case for further proceedings yes