i believe that the lack of jurisdiction by the district court was fully briefed and therefore i would like to address two key issues as to why this case should be remanded back to the district court for further proceedings number one as a matter of law mr  cross examine linda carter subpoenaed court transcript testimony of prepares medical evidence or experts so putting aside although this is a key issue the fact is illiterate which is clear from the deposition he did not even know how to spell the city he lived in program eight years at appendix one hundred and seventeen winds two and three he did not understand the exhibit they were giving him to not only his illiteracy and his a past abuse but the onset of dementia if this court so there's a few issues that the court lower court focused on in finding him to say that he was not  the case if the court turns to appendix eighty five dollars the asylum application the very very st interview where this man walks in and finally gets to testify he has an application that prepared by prepare not understand this letter said and this information is incorrect none his trip now carol continued this lie this is a good chance he might have gotten asylum but he didn't from the very onset of this man being questioned he said look this isn't true this isn't accurate this is actually my problem the government then goes on to presume that he reapply in removal proceedings and that's just not the way the law work asylum application is not found just sufficient and it was not found sufficient because this credible testimony it is automatically transferred to the removal proceedings court for review and that if you never came up there were several master hearings which are checking what are we going to do with this case what are you going to do with this case it never came to be until the whole case was transferred over pursuant to the law it's automatic he doesn't reply and what does he do he tells the judge departure that's not the way it works because you can't qualify for voluntary departure while having an asylum application and the because the asylum application in of itself said hague i'm afraid to go back home so that's if not the way the facts laid down so therefore you do not have that he misrepresented to obtain a benefit and even to the extent that he signed something that he could read  specifically says none true and if you look at the line of the side of the letter he highlighted the hired say what he said what he didn't retract is that he was being abused which there's  several and this gets old to the fact why that summary judgement was premature because there's lots of evidence to show that add child he was abused by his step mom and by a step mom's family who are quite powerful both in yemen and in the community in the united states so i would respectfully disagree that he didn't fully retract that when you look at that letter which is that the substance and absence of the entire asylum application because that's what lays out his country which means that in this ability didn't exist on like ronnie who ronald was barred for ten years and so by not listing his previous name it also concealed the deportation you don't have that here what you have is a man that was placed in removal proceedings he was granted voluntary departure not to court it which not only waived any bar it also waived the bar on a lot of physical presence and this is basically a kid into let's just say i'm arrested now if i don't grasp it and i'm convicted and i why am i and four hundred that's material what if i only after the letter was this is all the truth if he had withdrawn the asylum application at that point would it have taken six years before he got here had been voluntarily in the park so even and this again gets back to the fact that the summary judgement was premature in his mind was based on childhood abuse abuse from the step mom now whether that qualify for asylum is one thing but whether it was done in bad  i'm afraid and that's all he said from the very beginning and the fact that this was granted on separate judgment before evidence of that could be presented to the court is exactly why this should be remanded back and and  so if you look at going back one other thing is that if you present that evidence of asylum and you demonstrate that he didn't willfully misrepresented anything you cases in fact many immigrants change their name when coming to the united states including judges sitting on the circuit courts around the united states circuit court judge wifely just no two months ago that his father changed his name and that citizen father that's not without more with our lives that's not the law and if we look at for example please look at the state at home program ok the safe at home program protect abused children by changing their names there are several organizations changing one's name if not in a bit south bad moral character nor does it go to admissibility only in a disability issue as if he saw it benefit by misrepresentation or if he was deported or if in fact he had triggered the i'm up at present bar but whether he tells six the truth of this application or with whether it's withheld because someone used that word but they used it affect the government's burden of proof so reaffirm that was not a discussion of the issue in the slightest or that the court noted that it was for practice but i think the controlling issue here is whether this is an actual jurisdictional transfer the jurisdiction that's only in the in the court where the defendant this case will reside to the criminal court and allow them to cancel the naturalization i mean it makes a lot of sense congress adopted a reasonable policy see there but it also shows that