immigration judge and that didn't cause her to resist the path of of say what you have to say to get in and stay in the country so was it the warning or was the fact that she had a plan b that suddenly worked that caused her to suddenly hit the straight and prior counsel the first lawyer things look the confused i'm not sure what was really addressed in advance or not tricky fashionable issues if you know you know whether you're married and you have two children or not that you know there's there are other things that can be trickier than  are clearly not tricky things but i guess the concern that i would have if if we were to accept your rationale that anything to strain her could simply withdraw an asylum petition any time that he or she is caught in a lie to avoid an eligibility and it that that doesn't seem to be a good policy and doesn't seem to be consistent with the statute and so i have that concern just so i correctly understand to it appears to me that you concede in your brief that that her application did application before the court so we can offer some level she she had taken advantage of the untruths already means she had been allowed to stay in the country longer than she might have been able to stay in the country otherwise simply by claiming that she was eligible for asylum and s g the system for a certain period of time is there any reason why the law should encourage the havior by which we're calling petitioners here so use that term but petitioners lie in a way that you can't fail to know me she the parameters are really thin i realize you want to reserve the rest time for a bar but just based on what you said is that your current position that the only relief you're seeking is the kind of relief the second circuit gave and saying which is basically says put the question back to the b ira they are no longer case you know we have not made a determination yet as to whether we're going to see further review in shang if you don't what are the consequences for this case well we think that the court should read this should read the statute as proposed which is that the phrase final determination  there's a practical problem here that i want you to think about because this court more than any other of the circuits has been chastised by the supreme court about not jumping ahead and making sure you let the b i speak first and within this court there a least some members including some people you're looking at today who have made that point within our own deliberations now we have the second circuit saying ok send it back to the b i a and if that stands it to put us in kind of an awkward position to say well in this case we don't need to do that although one of our sister circuits has done so and is judged right now as to be i will presumably have to pass upon the questions was going to speak and is there really is you your practical reason why we ought to go forward now that seems to be the way the statute is written and the course in such of such a situation the immigration judge making that determination would require quite a bit of evidence to support his factual finding that the transcripts when you have the colloquy that counsel for the government pointed to my i read that transcript you couldn't be any more explicit than the cork was about saying i see your attorneys nodding his head and telling you how to answer but if you're the one who's going to stop her the