well here the next case cruiser's is lynch for the reasons outlined in my brief the case was essentially stacked against her that it was mired with judicial error both at the i j a and at the board level the board adopted not only the two thousand and twelve decision by the i j but the two thousand and eleven decision which is based on testimony entirely not in the record before this court and it is unclear why the judge could not just have issued a brand new decision in his two thousand and twelve decision but he decided not to you instead said i'm going to adopt my primary issue in this case was that they came before the current court with dirty hands they had submitted a date altered lease but to the judge from the very onset they indicated that this was a date altered these thanks have to this they never that is correct the the lease was originally authentic when she first rented the house in two thousand and five and there was a lease issued by mr a yes because but then later the house was purchased by mr cruise and her ex husband and therefore the date altered the second lease which was from two thousand and six so they offered they went before the court and they even brought in the testimony of mr yes because to say yes that second lease was date altered so they were never  and that doesn't change my mind there's no there's no balance or there's no assessment of why that testimony does not cooperate the evidence of ten years of shared marital union here the immigration judge and the board is tasked with reviewing the material issues at court which are did the couple marry for love which they testified credibly to that the judge never made any adverse findings on their credibility as to why they married and whether they were continuing to live in marital union they also both testified that they lived together at two fourteen freeman so essentially they proffered that they submitted a doubter lease but here's the corroborating evidence that we lived here by the same token other evidence it goes in their direction i don't disagree with you the question is whether there's some evidence of supports in the record some crowd some evidence in the record that supports the conclusion reached by the hearing examiner where the b i think your honor we submit that documentary evidence does not outweigh the corroborated evidence that was submitted there were three witnesses that came forward that testified to not just the first years in the first years of a marriage and i both know that you used the word outweigh of that's not what we do we don't weigh the evidence any more do we look i under god's work doing this kind of work so much so i'm i'm not you don't have a hostile venture but the problem is is that there are limitations to what we can and cannot do and this is a substantial evidence standard in which credibility determinations absent some kind of total arbitrary and capricious kind of determination we cannot interfere with family yes honor can if it's not supported by substantial evidence and the judge himself found that that was a minor issue because hector had the opportunity to explain why had he had w to use at a different address and he answered the reasons for that was his bad credit so the judge gave him an opportunity to say why did you have your job used to going to another address and he responded to that was compelled to believe hector was the i j a compelled to believe hector he's he's compelled to make while he should make an adverse finding if he does not find that to be credible right so in this case really in addition to all the credibility problems there's also another issue that i pointed out in my brief which was that the credibility findings in this case are not clear at says well it's it isn't it is not or some some aspects are credible and some are not given in this case it's d h has his burden to prove that they did not live together then the testimony that they did have which they offered to the court which was that they were living together that should be taken as credible and there's there's no indication here that any of the credibility findings were held in a positive manner toward them also there was the other issue that i would like to discuss with the court which was the consolidation of these proceedings and i make it the argument in my brief that consolidation was improper because they prejudiced mrs cruz and the primary reason is that judge strauss's of two thousand and eleven decision is filled with adverse findings relating to mr lamont hill who was mrs cruise's ex husband that evidence would not have been submitted had these cases not been consolidated and that is why i argue that it prejudiced mrs cruz there's never any testimony that she had any control over the forms that he filled out at the time that he did his residency and in fact mr l testimony forward from his ex wife to attest that she and he lived together during all times of their marriage why was that not brought forward as positive your adversary will argue based on the a problem right with that argument thank you your honor and to the prejudice that i'm pointing to is is the submission and the weight that the judge also placed he stated that that was an adverse factor that mr lamont hill had not included their children and his seven fifty one but there's no evidence whatsoever that she had any control so with that evidence had been admitted in her removal proceeding had these cases not been consolidated and i would submit that it would not have been and that it tainted it to the extent that the judge remand when he did the new hearing he said well there's no reason for me to change my prior decision and there was no evidence that he showed any consideration for any of the further corroborating evidence or any of the other witnesses that presented themselves on that day and that shows the challenges decision and three ways to procedural challenges in three thirty one substantive i think we can address the procedural challenges briefly one being that the immigration judge improperly adopting from his prior decision as a panel noted there's nothing different the petitioner presented in later testimony that differed with the explanation she presented the first time the transcripts from from the hearing were not available is that correct that's correct as testimony revealed there was an i seventy five one petition to lift the conditions on cruises miss cruises conditional residency and turned out he filled out that application so of course came from her daughter right the was it the daughter that when you took and on the record and perhaps you can get that right now and she writes down pacifically in her handwriting resides in peru there's no indication from her notes that she merely said he was physically located temporarily in peru on vacation as she would try to explain he brief that the credibility of petitioner husband and her witnesses is essential to this case and credibility is greatly in question here because there's a fraudulent documents in that in this case as the government pointed out in our answering but that is also dependent on his explanation his credibility and he is invited to committing a fraud this lease every turn you have the agency having to depend on their credibility but they have very little because of this fraud perpetrated agency he did not have any children much less children and miss cruz and the agency recently concluded this was a bigger picture trying to conceal a continued relationship the fact they purchased a proper together when they if you if you have anything more to say i have nothing else that honour's the government here is relying on inconsistency that do not go to the heart of the matter of whether mrs cruz was married with mr cruz whether to fourteen freeman and the fact that they had a couple of documents that called into question does not mean that they did not have the opportunity to show corroborating evidence the issue here is that the i j a did not even consider the corroborating evidence because he held his hand on the phones the men who know fal doctor and that's exactly what this court said was subject to limitations and see a way because the very first limitation it says is a failure to assess corroborating evidence and in the second hearing the judge simply said well we've heard a whole bunch of other evidence and testimony but then doesn't address the merits of any of that and it is insufficient when there is a document to just rest your hat on that one document judicial process requires that the judge consider and assess the other documentation that is submitted and hear a marriage estate and evolving relationship it what it didn't just and with the submission of a date altered lease which again they prove offered to the judge had been dated altered so they didn't try to that any further but there's no evidence the judge considered any of the years after that two thousand and six lease which included incredible hardship the risk in the petitioners husband became very ill he was hospitalized there were records showing that she was caring for him during all of his happy hospitalizations and amputations he received all of his social security statements to their joint address federal income taxes continued to be filed i recently year joint bills other names co mingled finances none of this matters none of this crime writing evidence this corroborating evidence should have been assessed by the immigration judge and the board's decision which does not does not seem to care that none of that information was assessed