before you start i want to thank both of you i know we had we had some scheduling problems this week that were fairly formidable but we appreciate you accommodating us and agreeing to reschedule so well that you may proceed not a problem reflects that there is no dispute in the record that mr kerik passion from armenia was repeatedly during the one nine hundred ninety s taken by either military forces four by the police first of all we need to look at this in the context the historical context of when he was growing up in armenia it was part of the soviet union part of that he's drawn blocking in only in the very early one nine hundred ninety s did armenia become a so called however when he went to russia wherever he stayed in russia he was subjected to similar types of beatings and and interrogation and the like not necessarily because of his political beliefs but because of his ethnic background and it is it is that treatment in russia that shows that relocation in russia was not really an available remedy in fact although the immigration judge suggested that relocation wasn't available remedy and cited the case of chio in support of that and that cases specifically said that you must be given an undisturbed stay in that place where you attempt to relocate hedging stay in the soviet union hard or in russia during his several trips back there was certainly not understood or anything but i think you could you address for me an issue that i don't think either party has really  whatever happened below i don't think it would affect this court's jurisdiction because the court or the b i a certainly exercised its power of review that there's no question that they went ahead reviewed it  happened to him and russia apps absolutely no that's that's that's correct we believe that taken together the cumulative effect of mr kerry patients experience of being subjected to the beatings detention because of his political activities in armenia that certainly gives a great deal of credence and supports fully his claim of fear of persecution because he had that past persecution frankly to demean him to interrupt him and to tell him that he simply didn't believe him and that in order to make an adverse credibility finding that is capable of being immigration judge has it basically point out trivial in russia he renewed his passport how could he possibly have done this there's nothing in the record to suggest that he couldn't have done it that it's not entirely consistent for him to have been able to do so  that i think the i g wrestled with as well was the fact that he keeps coming back to armenia which is where the incidents of persecution occurred but he lived first a potential period of time elsewhere in russia and there is a recognized doctor in immigration case law that indicates that if you can relocate to another part of the country to avoid the persecution you may not have  isn't that what the idea was talking about that's certainly not what the i j a said i suppose one could try and read beyond the i j a zone explanation and rationale what do you make of his his and relocation and russia and therefore if relocation is a viable option in a third country that is not the united states not armenia then he could be deported but in fact as i said a few moments ago the cio case does not support view because the relocation has to be undisturbed the andrassy in case does not support that view because in in every case you are dealing with an azerbaijani citizen who tried to relocate in armenia but in fact was told to good morning your honour's my name is patricia paralysing and i present the respondents in this case on let me begin by addressing the question that your honor asked about the titian are moving from armenia russia to russia as the core pointed out the immigration judge did find in the record that he was petitioner in this case spent eight years out of the last ten years in russia and during the time that he was in russia the traditional himself in the record says that the only time that he left russia work because his neighbors weren't being nice to him or because there was some ethnical issues involved that there was no suggestion at all that he was think there might be two issues and if you can take them in turn three on what one is the issue addressed by the petitioner saying that the set of circumstances which you've just described goes to where he could be removed which country could moved to and that would be relevant to whether or not he can be removed to russia where he could live i'm disturbed that's that's once of the second is the doctrine that you can live somewhere else in the country under sterve but i'm not aware of any case that the court remembers the the question was whether the petitioner in that matter in that particular case but i think in this in this matter in this case before the court the immigration judge struggled with that state i can't pronounce and so my stay in russia was very short i was detained by the special police force and expelled to armenia that's what he says about his second to last then i decided to make my last attempt to settle in russia we accept that testimony is credible why can we draw the conclusion that he can now go back to russia why can we draw the conclusion that he cannot go back to you can't that you can go to russia without being expelled  himself on the record stated that at one point during his eight years living in russia he was granted legal residence right that's true but i mean this is working russian he was allowed to live in russia there's no indication on the record that he wouldn't be able to credibility fine the first was that he felt the existence or holding of the passport was inconsistent with the testimony in the second as he disputed the country conditions described by the consider the record shows that you didn't ok but unfortunately your honor and i understand that include marja train heart my heart indicated that the immigration judge should at least allow a petition or to explain the discrepancy but i think in that case this of the law required no i think the only i think the point of that is that the petition to have a fair opportunity to address concerns that are readily apparent in this case  it's not addressed in the record one way or the other and i'm just asking well the immigration judge is that person and that is the best person in terms of determining with the facts that come before him he's the of the claim the heart of the crime is that when he was in armenia that he was beaten on three occasions something and for expressing pro western sentiments if that's really the heart of the climb the fact that he was spending time in russia for what what what time has been russia sort of the side of the point isn't it isn't it isn't your honor and i think it goes to the heart of heart of the claim because if he's claiming that he was an arm in armenia at a fact that he was been in armenia at some time and that is correct in the immigration judge even said that even if i believe you i think in this case that i believe that you were beaten i don't believe that that type of harm that the petitioner suffered we pick up where counsel just left off in the key issue here really is that for this court to affirm the be used and the and the ids finding and determination there must be substantial evidence in the record in order just support the i g is decision and what we've heard counsel say here today as well as in the their brief is that in some places the record is unclear in some places there are omissions in the record but it's quite clear is undisputed in the record that he was subjected to beatings and detention in armenia on several different occasions over a decade he ran away he was forced to come back he ran away he may have come back by choice because of other reasons maybe not being forced but clearly relocation in russia was not an option certainly after he was ordered to return to armenia and being in armenia and expressing his political views and being detained and beaten and also it was not an option that is persecution and the only thing on the record that contradicts bad at all is the i j a the adverse credibility finding but that adverse credibility finding is not supported