and i are very pleased to have our friends from church tomoya from the just church of montana joining us today john thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to help us out groom is a native and citizen of the pall after seeking retirement from the indian army he joined the nepal congress democratic party and why he was doing it basically on two different and separate instances one of them was an inconsistency between his statement that the mouse took his property and the letter that he introduced into evidence saying that y c testimony he came to know about bison in two thousand and eight after his uncle was attacked and that kind of also prompted him to seek asylum here in this country i hope i have addressed your concern returns and after his return there's an escalation meaning he gets attacked by the most he's beaten up and then he just is another few weeks or a month he stays in the paul for another camp and i think it was at the been on a on a ship in contract that was the best option he had and he was able to secure that and then he came to us and he wasn't he didn't fear for his life when he left the st time so when he wasn't very much so when he was in cruise ship he had been only he had been approached by them honest he had been threatened yes so yes that threat was there but it had not escalated to a level that he really felt threatened of persecuted of he had to fear because after  because he had not been physically attacked but then it was just a verbal threat china's do this for us he has this money if you don't then the consequences could be bad and then he then he leaves the country comes back and he's not met the requirements that demand so and then he would say but they're holding my passport he cannot use it he couldn't do that he could not have done that you know he was working as a security officer and it's in his testimony in the record that when the ship porter that australia he and there was another was his passport handed over to him and then he returned so it was not a very voluntarily that you know he didn't have the freedom so to say not not by gunpoint but he didn't have the freedom to basically walk away because there was a person good morning mr chief judge may please the court were to offer signs for the u s attorney general this this case should deny this court to deny mr graham's petition for review substantial evidence supports each of the primary findings the agency made in this case one its denial of asylum based on an untimely application and failure show changed circumstances to its denial of statutory withholding of removal based on a finding that mr graham was not credible and three if the nihil of cat protection based on the failure to show that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured in nepal or that the nepalese authorities would acquiesce to that torture if i may add like to jump right into the adverse credibility finding the agency as was mentioned the agency relied on two grounds the voluntary return in february two thousand and seven and the inconsistency about who seized the land in late two thousand and six as to the return the agency properly determined that the return undermine his credibility this case is comparable to the local case in three key respects one there's evidence that he did fear upon leaving nepal in september two thousand and six despite options available to him he returned in february two thousand and seven and went on the stand in front of the immigration judge he provided a puzzling explanation for the return contrary to my counsel's assertions earlier there is evidence in the record that he did in fact have fear when he left in september two thousand and six princip and his declaration this is that a r six hundred and ninety nine he's referring to the march two thousand and six attack i discussed this matter with my family and friends they suggested me to leave the place immediately so i decided to leave my country and go abroad until the situation in the park gets back to normal this is his own assertion that he feared it but there's also circumstantial evidence as well he testified that he spent forty five dollars months after the march two thousand and six attack with his brother in pocke t again supporting the contention that he feared leaving he also testified that he returned to kathmandu that actually goes to the fear he returned he did not want to go back to his original village because he was in fear that he was going to be attacked by the mouse again the explanation that he gave for the return was that his contract had expired there is insufficient to ask a question are you arguments about his credibility you have withdrawn my correct incorrect your honor not not the adverse credibility we withdrew the alternative finding that was denying statutory withholding of removal based on his failure to show past persecution that adverse credibility finding we argue still stands the board in its decision that they are sixty nine dollars foot no one acknowledges that standing alone each of the bases may not be enough but together under the totality of circumstances they are but the id's determination that he was not physically attacked was incorrect it was you know correct your honor so let's assume you have a situation where you are a person is a little afraid there are a lot of cumulative amounts so he returns from the cruise ship and then he gets beaten up if we just take that scenario harm we testified we conceded that the harm didn't rise to the level of persecution was a mistake and we don't we withdraw the argument defend understand that i'm just saying but there doesn't seem to be much doubt that he was beaten up  well if we have an adverse credibility determination and if it was for the all of his testimony correct the testimony would basically be off the table ok well let's let's assume that just just what happened after he left for persecution as it may it may or may not be i think our position would be we would like the agency to make that determination in the st instance should it be appropriate but  it may i mean there's physical harm here and when combined with the other instances that he underwent the threats as well it may very well be let's let's turn to the you're the other bases forevers you have her skirt ability fine ok is do you concede or not concede that the young communist league is a branch or fillion with the maoists yes if we if we step back and we view that explanation in isolation it makes sense that the youth wing is part of the maoists and they're the same but we have to view the entire full picture from beginning to end which is he st testified that it was only the maoists and he said he was  suggested that there are different groups but then he provided at least by my count eight times he was asked he gave different explanations throughout those eight confrontations among which he he did testify that the mouse and the why c l took my property he also testified that the letter is correct so he sensually gave all three possibilities to answering the question of who sees your property right but if it's an essential or same group why does it matter material because it goes to his claim that he suffered harm past persecution in nepal and it also goes to his fear of returning for being harmed by the mouse again so it goes to his claim it would be part of  i guess i'm probably not asking my question very clearly but why is that and why is it immaterial immaterial to his credibility if you press part of the same group and he just using the terms interchangeably i see  again i i think our position would be that viewing the explanation in isolation it certainly makes sense but what we have here is is inconsistent explanations as well as inconsistent testimony which the immigration judge had to view collectively together and and that was in april two thousand and thirteen and june two thousand and thirteen that's when he provided the explanation that they are  narrative he he was providing different responses and that collectively is enough to be substantial evidence and there's not evidence here to compel acceptance of the explanation just because we have a plausible explanation does not mean that the result is compelled otherwise i'd like to quickly address the convention against torture claim if i may the agency relied on two independently dispositive grounds there one the likelihood of torture in nepal and two that th authorities would acquiesce to that torture our position would be that regardless of the past harm misstatement in the board's decision and regardless of whether we have a problem with adverse credibility the convention against torture finding w any evidence of government complicity in private acts so that would be our position on the convention against torture and then with changed circumstances we submitted a twenty a j letter referencing to sum up we the reasons discussed today and for those that didn't are brief we believe substantial evidence supports the agency's three findings and we ask that the court deny mr green's petition for review thank you counsel thank you