please the court my name is kelsey back and i represent mr patrick go in need of an citizen of kenya and mr three younger was actually present in this courtroom today i would like to reserve two minutes for a battle the petitioner in this case is asking that his petition be granted and his case be remanded on an open record because the immigration judges adverse credibility determination and the boards review of that determination was not supported by substantial evidence first that adverse credibility determination based on in consistencies was not supported by substantial evidence because the immigration judge failed to provide specific in cogent reasons for rejecting the petitioners explanation for the alleged it consist nor suggest any reason that she found the petitioners explanation was not credible and that case this court found that the lack of consideration given to the proffered explanation was error and prevents the underlying inconsistency give its reasons for considering the petitioners explanation and persuasive and found the be a b i did not address the petitioners explanation in a recent manner in this case the board held that the record reflects that the immigration judge provided specific in cogent reasons for rejecting mr the youngest explanations the board does not state though where or how it found these specific in cogent reasons provided by the a immigration judge when simply none were provided in the immigration judge's decision for that reason the board's conclusion is simply not supported by the record and thus supported not supported by substantial evidence second the immigration judges to be his holdings that mr the youngest document ten documentary corroborative evidence did not overcome the prior inconsistency is or is not supported by substantial evidence  immigration judge basically concluded that the documentary evidence submitted by mr thiago could not overcome the prior consistencies because those the authors of those documents were not available for cross examination i believe that this conclusion by the immigration judge violates this court's decision xu becomes all is where the i g found that it was error for an immigration judge to base  obtain live testimony from persons abroad furthermore the immigration judge gave no other no other information about why the documentary evidence was not sufficient or why whether there was any evidence underlying its reliability that the immigration judge furthermore gave mr thiago no notice that cross examination of the authors of those documents were necessary which i believe is a violation of run beholder which requires an immigration judge to give notice and an opportunity for the petitioner to provide to provide that information as required finally the immigration judge did not apply in some the proper standard and applied and his adverse credibility determined to terminations in addition to not considering mr sanders explanation he also didn't consider other issues that were raised by mr stern go he didn't consider the health issues that he raised he didn't consider his other consistent testimony and other and for evidence that he submitted that was consistent and i ask you a question deadline and in particular as it relates to extraordinary circumstances his health right yeah well he also did state in his asylum application that he was traumatized and that he was suffering from some type of health condition and he did provide some testimony about that in remind me the health issues i remember like i don't feel like i've blood pressure but it wasn't you know disabling health issues such that you couldn't do you know bring yourself to file an application i just it seemed to me that probably everybody who eventually makes their way to the united states claim asylum could claim some adverse health effects right and if so i don't know that's i just want to hear more from you about that and i do believe that the health documents submitted were not necessarily the most convincing part of the documents that he submitted i believe actually the fact that he said he was traumatized multiple times were enough of a trigger for the immigration judge to look at whether he had satisfied the extraordinary circumstance exception for  filing an application be on the wind when you're deadline he could have explored it further with mr thiago and actually cited to that in his decision but he didn't cite to it in his decision that all of it appears from his decision that he didn't even consider that even though mr the younger said and stated in his eye five eight nine that that was one of the reasons he didn't file his asylum application sooner in addition to extraordinary circumstances mr theodor presented evidence of additional events that had occurred in kenya that showed that there were six changed circumstances and unfortunately again the immigration judge did not refer to all of the evidence that mr younger presented are you talking about the beating up of his brother is that what you're alluding to yes and also that again he didn't file to seventeen months after that ninety year and a half is it your position that that traumatized him also yes is and as well as the fact that he testified that his colleagues and coworkers had been reporting to him that you know they had been getting increase about him and it's it was really all of these events that the immigration judge should have considered and determining whether he met this exception to the one year deadline but he only considered the fact that mr stan was house was burned down after the two thousand and eight election and violence after that in kenya so i think it was an error on the immigration judges part to not consider all of that evidence in determining whether he meant an exception to the one year double counseling or down to about please the court i'm lindsey donahue on behalf of the attorney general the petitioner challenges the agency's adverse credibility and asylum and timeliness to terminations but these are terminations are supported by substantial evidence for two reasons first mr theone goes credibility was marred by key discrepancies that he failed to reconcile with reasonable implausible explanations and second mr thiago cannot demonstrate eligibility for asylum where he filed h haitian over three years out of time and did not demonstrate he was established an exception to the deadline and counsel and let me cut to the chase of what i may on the main issue of concern to me and that is after so to a large day this court explain the requirements for immigration judges consideration of explanations and as petitioner acknowledges in his opening brief if the applicant offers a reasonable implausible explanation for an apparent discrepancy the immigration judge must provide a specific and cogent reason for rejecting it but if the alien fails to provide a plausible explanation the immigration judge may properly rely on the inconsistency  when asked to explain this discrepancy the petitioner offered a substantive plausible explanation that the police were loath to get involved with the colts and wouldn't want to mention them in the police reports that agency in that case ha something to probe into with that explanation but they did not they did not explain why they rejected the explanation or even comment on it in their decision and so this court concluded that it was improper  holder a situation more akin to what we have here the petitioner did not offer a substantive explanation that gave the agency something to probe into in that case the petitioner offered excuses for his discrepancies explaining there must have been some kind of translation error or he didn't recall in that case the immigration judge faithfully acknowledged and recited those explanations in her decision but ultimately concluded he was not credible and this court supported that determination explaining that because risk did not offer a reasonable and plausible explanation the contradictions  was not required to give an expressed point by point rejection of those explanations in this case we don't have a substantive explanations of the agency can delve into mr thiago offered superficial excuses he said that he confused his testimony because he just misspoke even though he misspoke four times including once after his explanation or that he neglected to mention a significant portion of his claim because he chose not to the agency was not required to accept these explanations and they alternately did not do so and this is understandable in light of the seriousness of his discrepanc was claimed was based on a political asylum he was an activist against the political agenda of the movie group he claimed that as a result of that political activism that he w harmed that he was assaulted by people he believed from and geeky in his asylum application he stated this happen only weeks before coming to the united states and only weeks before finding out that someone had interrogated his wife about his whereabouts but in his testimony before the immigration judge he claimed that this occurred in two thousand and four years before he came to the united states and his explanation was simply that he had misspoken a reasonable adjudicator could conclude that this type of discrepancy was indicative of the truthfulness of his account and mr thiago doesn't offer anything to explain why any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary and again in his asylum application his political asylum application he claims that he was the victim of cult political clashes over a span of two decades and yet did not mention this in his testimony to the immigration judge his explanation was simply that he chose not to a reasonable adjudicator could again conclude that perhaps this goes to the truthfulness of his claim when he forgets to mention four incidents in which his family was  g was required to give some kind of an explanation for finding him not credible yes your honor when this court is looking at an agency's decision and it's looking for a reason and consideration that the agency thought and heard and to not merely reacts in a scale where there is a a plausible and substantive explanation when the agency does not explicitly addressed that in that explanation or even comment on it it's difficult to parse out what exactly the agency was thinking but in a case like this one where the explanations are simply i chose not to or i misspoke there's not much for the agency to delve into here their reasoning is fairly apparent on respondent now alleges his failure to file a timely asylum application was due to health related issues including high book blood pressure and diabetes but this is the part i'm focused on but he did not provide this as a reason before the immigration judge it seems to me that's just flat out in incorrect that he most definitely did mention i think it was and i can't remember it was in the affidavit right but he specifically said one of the reasons why i was not able to file on time was because of the selfish you so i didn't know what to make of the  error in that respect is that fatal to upholding the decision no your honor you are correct that in his affidavit in his asylum application he didn't mention his health problems before the immigration judge he clarified his response to explain that his health problems were not at the terence to his application but actually were the reason that prompted him to calm and apply it all he explained excuse me that he couldn't get help for his illness without coming forward and explaining his problems on page one i want to the record and you subsequently decided to apply for asylum he doesn't explain even now how his health actually detailed him from applying especially given as you no earlier that the medical records seem to be relatively well controlled conditions and in fact the medical report says well controlled hypertension and benign prostate hypertrophy and to the extent he now claims before the court that he had it mental disability that he was traumatized mr thiago never made that claim and his testimony in fact when asked about all of the events that he now suggests led to some sort of trauma he never wants talked questions i will conclude no question here during the i think we can thank you for your thank you case was was supported by substantial evidence because mr thiago only made superficial excuses and did not provide a reasonable explanation if that was the case the immigration judge could have said that but he didn't say that and so i believe that what what the government is urging you to do is reading and read into the record something that simply doesn't exist immigration judge he did reciting the fact that mr  t go mistakenly said two thousand and four instead of two thousand and seven but he didn't say that he didn't he didn't he didn't say that he found mr theo goes explanation unconvincing or that he didn't find  reasonable and for that reason his adverse credibility just terminations is not supported by substantial evidence furthermore the fact that mr thiago didn't talk about the earlier events that had happened to him  also not supported by substantial evidence because if he had talked about them in a in his testimony it would if he wants just claim by feeling to talk about those earlier events he actually detracted from his claim so the the immigration judges reliance on that alleged inconsistency as further evidence that it's it's not supported by substantial substantial evidence and i