she entered this country legally and she was shortly thereafter married to american citizen and fortunately this gentleman died before she was able to remove her conditional status of her permanent residence he died of a heroin overdose subsequently dispute for the way for as she's entitled to by law and there were two subsequent requests for evidence which she answered in full after answering those requests she received a notice to appear alleging certain allegations but the main one that brought in to remove a procedure first proceedings was not a dearth of evidence but rather it was a claim of a sham marriage so we proceeded to trial before a judge going to court and it was a long while hearing for an immigration hearing eight witnesses came forward it was never produced the tube according to the wrongly police department was a drug addict and a criminal really came time to produce this person judge minnick or put the armstrong yes sir this one that they couldn't find well no attempt was made by the government to find about just produce them the the the job of that was put on myspace even though this was the person who reported to the police  the wrong bird the proof was put on her rather than well there bernie the burden of proof is dismissed putra has to prove it by the preponderance of the evidence which is the next issue that the marriage was entered into in good while i agree with you it was it was a mistake in view in that from the onset it was viewed as a sham marriage so it was that view and during the and that's the view that brought us to immigration proceedings and that's the view that we defended primarily however during the course of that trial we also produced quite a bit of evidence including eight witnesses testifying as to the legitimate c of the marriage and yes i agree with you that the burden the burden should not have been imus pucelle to the extent of producing this particular witness and it was and again the crux of the notice to appear was a sham marriage that's what the allegation was it was nat any just a dearth of evidence or a failure to meet the preponderance of the evidence now the preponderance of the evidence i don't i guess she needs she needed a waiver she needed a waiver to waive ok since that at the because she she of course could not show that they continue to be married and things like that because he's the one with us so so yes while a waiver was necessary what brought her to immigration proceedings was not a it was not a claim that you've see failed to meet any evidentiary standard but what rather than it was a sham marriage and that's what we went forward and defended now what now i've also asked the court to look at the issue of whether the of the evidence standard was properly applied in this case i would help you so are you familiar with that matter on roe ok at the board issue which basically  which talked about the two year conditional period and that she could have been excused from the joint piling requirement fine so as we went forth in this hearing before the immigration judge we presented all sorts of evidence besides all the paper evidence that the immigration that  immigration service asked for we had eight witnesses testifying none of them were found not to be credible now there was a vague reference to the vagueness however i think if you look at the records you'll see that actually all that the dates were notable they gave details as to what occurred why they were how they met the couple and things like that and so to reach this conclusion in light of all of this evidence one has to good morning may it please the court we saw more nearly on behalf of the attorney general the court should deny in part and dismiss in part this petition for if you first because petitioner seeks review of an agency decision tonight her discretionary good faith marriage waiver the court's jurisdiction is limited to colorable constitutional claims and questions of law to the extent the petitioner's allegations involving the immigration judges management of proceedings raised legal questions the court should deny review the immigration judge properly admitted a police report prepared at the time of her former husband and petitioner had an opportunity to cross examine the police officer who prepared t report can the can you address this issue of whether or not she really needed to get a waiver yes around her that there is never been a contention before the agency or before this court that she didn't need a waiver so that has that has not that has not been been raised before this court so it is always been the position of the government that the that she did need the waiver in the issues of whether or not she qualified for the waiver you are you familiar with the going to get that issue the joint the existing shows under the front of the joint filing requirement i understand it wasn't done but it doesn't mean we can't review and if she didn't even need a waiver then and i'd like you to speak to that matter wrote or maybe you would want to do some additional briefing because nobody focused on that right yes that was not addressed in our briefing but to me that's like writing you know right on the money in this but we obviously have to check with the presiding judge and the panel to see if they think additional briefing is necessary but that's really my issue in this case  i understand and here before the immigration court and the board there was no contention that petitioner did not need to qualify or excuse me do not need to apply for the for the waiver because her conditional residence was their view matter rose which is twenty jan decision that some day if i may just address petitioner argument regarding the that the preponderance of the evidence standard i would just like to argue argue that petitioners remaining claims regarding the weight given to the evidence is asking the court to relay the evidence which in this situation this court has recognized that it does not have jurisdiction to do when we're looking at a waiver request the the determination of what weight to give the evidence is for the immigration court for example petitioner asserts that the police report and the testimony should be given me the testimony of the detective should be given a little weight but that's for the immigration judge to determine in this type of case and i would just also like to point out petitioner mentioned that mr parents testified to the  the bona fides of the marriage but as the immigration judge and the board both pointed out to seems parents did not testify whether or not the marriage was a good faith marriage they testified that they did not know what the status of the marriage was and also that they did not remember talking to the police officer at the time of their son's death and so both the immigration judge and the boy pointed out the fact that this  did stay with them intermittently here and there he stated a number of different locations but he did stay with them but yes they did not have a close relationship with him and were not exactly sure what his situation was w words the the evidence as particular to what the parents said the parents had they just they didn't know what what the relationship was they when they were asked about the enter into and offered some testimony about how they met and when the immigration judge was looking at all of the evidence found that it wasn't her testimony in the  the testimony of her witnesses was not persuasive evidence to prove that the husband and the wife intended to establish a life together at the time that they were married that is the standard emigration court is looking at is whether or not the parties intended to establish a life together at the time they were married and they can look at things including how long the couple lived together or how long they lived together after they have their initial interview with the immigration service and they're looking for evidence to indicate that both parties were committed to establishing a life together at the at the time them at the time of the marriage happen thank you for the ten day period to amend brief thank you you know just to address a few of the matters that counsel brought up should be clear that the parents of michael's alaska both e testified that his wife invited his son and miss put yo to their home on several occasions that's and the record at three thirty three as to the intent clearly the couple intended to have a life together they underwent an interview ok to get the first permanent residence card they had to go out go through that gauntlet and they they went through it  honor's questions about mr the deceit and surprisingly there were periods of sobriety in the marriage but certainly certain that addiction brought trouble to the marriage as it did to the rest of his life but there were periods of sobriety during the marriage where he was functioning going to work living with his wife signing leases with his wife and they were together so in terms of intent there wasn't intent unfortunately tragically the drug addiction took over and this young man died from his disease and my understanding is we will be