fourteen on page ten makes reference to the affidavit and says not only did she consider the first affidavit that was filed but also the second at the first hearing judge's decision in in twenty fifteen the sole basis that she terminates the a silent claim is based on the affidavit the other issues that the government raised in in in in its brief per taining to the medical affidavits the ledger the statement as far as his a silent application the judge in her ruling on page eight states that the government failed to meet their burden so the government failed to meet their burden on all those counts to government can't come back and we argue that like it did in its brief because it did not a peel this case we did so the only issue i'm not sure i understand the significance of your argument about the affidavit it's simply says we have not issued a certificate in the name of and nor is he a member of the association challenging that fin we're well we're challenging the finding your honor because we don't believe that our client had his due process rights of being able to cross examine the individual that that took the statement which was mrs webster in her testimony made a series of errors she's not able to let us know how this this affidavit was conceived and what the surroundings i don't understand why the burden was shifted to my client the government had a counselor meet with mr powell mr pawel ok the government could have easily made him a phone for from the from the counsel it to be you know to to be cross examined your honor and it's not required it's not required your honor but your honor how is my client supposed to my client was unable was unable to get to mr pavel well and if your client wasn't able to get to that individual why do you think the government should have had the obligation to produce some well because the government did get to the individual your honor it got to that individual ahead of sign an affidavit the government has a council it the government found this individual the government brought him to the the government had him sign the affidavit now the government claims that they can't bring him to the consulate so that he can pick up a phone and b and be part of this via phone as much  your clients couldn't contact the individual and maybe that's the same reason the government couldn't while my clients have not been in that country for well over thirteen fourteen years the government has a consulate the government has officials there the government reached out before and the government did not even make mr vane the government did not even make mr mapes a vailable and the government claims the government claims they can't find  mr mates that was an employee of the government but yet my client is supposed to find mr pawel fourteen fifteen years after the fact and get him to testify in this case are you talking about the consular the letter correct and you regard that as the is the critical well factor is critical in this sense had there affidavit and a written report by mr makers as to what went on and the reasons the mr papabile gave and the issues that were talked about at that point mr mates would need to be present but the only thing that was given was the affidavit when carol webster was asked you know did did mr mapes himself speak to eleven the judge in her order on page eight of the of the march twenty seventh twenty fifteen order specifically states that the government failed to meet their burden what does that mean if that  evidence was not accepted that the judge found that the evidence did not meet the burden the government did that mean that the evidence was not accepted as proof because we're looking for substantial evidence to support the decision so if that evidence is in the record that evidence can be considered correct correct right in page eight you were your honor in that the judge's ruling all those issues ifs all all those issues the government brought the judge says they have not met their burden as to the medical certificates as to the ledger and as to his statement in the asylum application which which decision is what the date of the decision that you're referencing dumb this is the march twenty seven twenty fifteen decision your honor if you go issues of confusion even by the judge as to the value of the letter but if the letter is fraudulent isn't that sufficient evidence for the immigration judge to the man that took the affidavit mr mates never testified to it the only person that testified was carol webster in kill webster had a limited phone conversation so so you so you are correct that head to head the affidavit been introduced the government would not have to produce mr pawel ok both of us are in agreement there because the immigration courts can't take hearsay testimony ok but at the minimum they should have produced mr mates that actually took the affidavit i don't give the teacher time will give you one minute for a bottle thank you may please the court victor lawrence of behalf of the acting attorney general this court's deny this petition for review as substantial evidence demonstrates that arm or department of homeland security but its burden to show fraud in in eligibility for asylum when it was granted first to correct my posting counts before i continue it's my argument at page eight of the immigration judges opinion that he was citing two if you look at the first sentence of the second paragraph it was down on the third the first second of sense of the second paragraph says the court is satisfied that da just met its burden to show by preponderance of evidence that respondents asylum application contains fraud so that discounts a lot of things that my opponent said yes that she was unsatisfied with the medical certificates and some other issues that the ledger but with respect to the general proposition ledger that was in the home i'm sorry the ledger that was  one in which his lawyer the same board it represented mystery in not this lawyer not not about he was convicted of asylum fraud he manufactured rumanian asylum claims and if you look at the record at page five thirty five thirty one you have the criminal complaint in which not only did they say that mr sic on commit is silent fraud but he committed a solemn fraud with respect to mr eans application so it's all tied together and in the complaint it only refers to the letters a b but we have the testimony of agent webster who indicated that it was in fact mr eames so five thirty and five thirty one is the criminal complaint that shows the that  was fraud on the application of mr in and at five forty of the record shows that mr seek on pleaded guilty to that or was found guilty for false statements in asylum application and at page five forty four of the record  caza is found guilty with respect to counts nine and ten so what we have then it is showing that there was fraud in the original asylum application under the standard and yes your honor it is substantial what how i was mr mates critical to this but i don't i don't know his testimony i don't think was critical at all but but it's another words that this this argument of hearsay which again in immigration proceedings we don't go by the federal rules of evidence so it should be considered hearsay about that and mr palmer said no i never issued that and this person the stream is not a member of our association so that completely eviscerated the claim that mr iemma was a member of the explained to the court to the immigration court that entire process of opposing counsel's position is that there was a due process validation what's your response there is no due process violation because his due process and i apologize i don't have the exact page cite for it is that mr mates no longer work for the state department at the time of the immigration suspicion in two thousand the immigration testimony in two thousand and fourteen so he was not an employee of the state department and therefore he couldn't testify or there's all sorts of regulations evolving whether an employee can testify when he's not no longer a member of that particular agency i don't even know if he worked for the government at that particular point just not in the record but he did work for the department of state and that's a reason one of the reasons why he didn't testify aside from the fact that it's very sufficient to show under the presumption of regularity this court's decision and gov particularly shows this that the testimony or and this court always trust for instance state department reports are they always i take it back to this court frequently trust this country reports from the department state which in fact are written problems was long hand in romania yes and so pablo specifically said that this person is not a member of our cessation whereas the original declaration said it was and there is no reason why testimony shows as as your honor pointed out that even the immigration judge offered to subpoena mr pavol to get his testimony mystery never took him up on that he she had a continuance to allow him to get additional evidence think that the respondent has made it has met his burden of showing that there is substantial evidence in the record to show that t h s met its burden of fraud in the original asylum application and at the time it was granted if the court doesn't have any other questions will rest on that thank you counsel thank you very much thank you one minute for  your honor even if even if mr mates was not working at the state department at that time the government could still of issued a subpoena to happen come into court but i'd also like to do is look at the weight the judge gave th in the church the judge in her decision never referenced the affidavit as grounds as to why she granted the society it was it was not material the judge then goes on in in her april twenty judge is in error because that was never made a very able to the court in in twenty fourteen so she's saying in twenty fifteen that the affidavit played a role in her decision but it really