ok at least the court i represent the petitioners in this case this is an appeal of a final order of removal issued by the board immigration appeals challenging a decision denying the petitioners claim for cancellation of remov and the one legal issue that the board denied the petitioners appeal was based on whether they had adequately proved ten years of continuous physical presence as required by the statute from the petitioners point of view the government's concession a few days ago in a letter that petitioner cosette did provide adequate evidence that she entered the us ten years before her notice to appear is issued is sufficient for the court to grant the petition and remand cosets appeal because that was sufficient because in order to show the ten years it's not necessary only to show that she entered more than ten years before the news to appear but that she did not absent herself from the united states for more than ninety days one time one hundred eighty days in the end i think the way that the b i decided the case is they didn't see it as two separate legal issues whether you met one in the other they saw it as one legal issue of ten years of physical presence because i'm reviewing the decision it doesn't say that petitioner cosette failed to prove her initial entry date and if in the alternative she also didn't prove one hundred eighty days all they say is we don't think that or evidence is enough on the entry date we also don't think her evidence is enough on the absences so we're going to two requirements and they thought she didn't meet either of them the government has conceded on the first but i'm still of the same mind as jacobs how is it that the second doesn't remain a fatal problem for her i guess if the court disagrees with my point of view on that then our position would be that essentially what the board did not make a negative credibility finding they just said we think your testimony which is not corroborated is not enough to meet your burden of proof and i think what the petitioners point of view is once the government is conceding that one major part of the testimony was corroborated that a fact finder might say well when your whole testimony is uncorroborated we're not willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and say your testimony standing alone is enough to meet your burden of proof so you're saying that credibility is a ball of wax and and everything is in court and  if the jury didn't believe that she entered ten years before the end that would that would have bearing on the credibility question as to whether she had presented herself more than ninety days one hundred eighty days in the  essentially that if the i j a was aware that there was a piece of evidence corroborating the initial entry what was i mean she claimed that she lost her passport yes how did she prove that what was her documentation how could she go about carrying sustaining her burden i think she could sustain her burden with her testimony because her testimony is evidence and despite the fact that she wasn't able to remember the specific number of days of each trip  remember and that's accurate yes not remember sure couldn't remember then how could she sustain her burden well i think looking at that in terms of the way that sort of normal people discuss trips i think if you pick someone off the street and said was two weeks second trip two months third trip another month and i didn't see any testimony i'm not aware of any specific that level of specificity is not in the testimony but i think what the petitioner did testify as i do know i made these trips but i can say that it was less than these amounts and i think that comports with the normal way people talk about things i mean if you're discussing a trip that you made twenty years ago in your passports last a normal person would say look i can't remember if it was nine days ten days but i can say it was less than a month so i think that's a pretty normal way for a witness or a person to talk about it that is a normal way to talk about vacations that we took ten or fifteen years ago yes but when we talk about these things we're not usually trying to sustain a burden of proof as to an issue critical yes and i think that gets into what the what another thing that the board missed is the petitioner presented evidence that long before she was applying for cancellation of removal she had testified under oath in both police reports and an application for protection order that she had lost her passport which i think corroborates the fact that she lost her  passport it's not just she conveniently lost it right before she applied for cancellation of removal that long before she was in removal long before she was even potentially eligible for this form of relief she had been testifying under oath to government officers i lost my passport  and i wasn't able to find anything specifically saying that there were that you were able to apply online so i can't say for sure whether you could or not but i can't say for sure is the government that the regulations cited by the government discussing these  interviews before this change to digital allowed for the waiver of the physical presence of the person at the interview and the printout that they provided from the state department in the part that says fingerprints specifically uses the word waived which i think is evidence that the interview was waived because it says it right in the state department's printout that was provided by the government as impeachment evidence against petitioner come are you trying to say that he was present at the interview so because  that you have to be there i guess i can't hundred percent say for sure i have to i mean i know even before they were digital they were mailed in because i did a few before then so they could have mailed it in but i can't say for sure whether it was a digital back then or not but basically what what the petitioners what they're arguing on that point is the regulation cited by the government says the interview can be waived the piece of evidence the government's presenting to say that the petitioner kamar was there uses the word waived when it comes to what you would do in person at the interview the fingerprints so i'm not really sure how that's consistent how that's inconsistent with his testimony that he wasn't present at the interview and she she lost her passport as i recall the question is whether her ex husband abusive ex husband essentially took it and refused to give it back  how come she had a phone call well i think she had had a photocopy of just two pages of it just i guess sort of look in her records that she was able to find the face page and the as stated in the police report in the protection order records the petitioner cosette essentially had to flee from her husband so i think it certainly makes sense when you're just sort of grabbing your belongings and fleeing from your abusive husband you might just grab a few you know you might just grab whatever is there and if it's only a few pages it's only a few pages and it's not everything you know a lot of these arguments might persuade but the issue before us is whether they have isn't it i mean we have to find that the agency could knock reasonably reject the claim and that seems to be a forger conclusion to reach i think we only get to that if the agency reviewed the evidence itself because fairly or to review relevant evidence is a legal error that requires the agency to look at it and the first time in the government is itself conceding that at least one part of it they didn't look at and from our point of view the evidence of the police reports in the protection order corroborating corroboration they also didn't review and essentially once the fact finder sees that there is a piece of evidence corroborating the testimony and the entry date they might step back and say well now that this is corroborated we're going to look at all of your testimony a little differently and a reasonable fact finder could give her the benefit of the doubt on the other issue especially when she has an adequate explanation as to why she can't corroborate that part of it so i think there is a more than reasonable chance that the agency could reverse itself  morning morning ma'am please the court stephen with you appearing on behalf of the attorney general this court should deny the petition because the agency recently decided the misca set mr kamar failed to establish ten years continuous physical presence in the united states possible on the second your honor because she testified that she departed around march of two thousand and one and that she returned around june there one hundred twenty two hundred twenty two days between march and beginning of march and the end of june and two thousand and one so it's possible for two thousand and one that it exceeded ninety days your honor that you said it was could have been more than sixty but it was and that is true your honor but it has to yes she did testify to that but the date but she also testified that she left around march and she left around june no mathematical computation that the agency did in this case as if in the identify and i think that's in large part because she wasn't specific in terms of her departures she estimated that the first departure was maybe fifteen days or two weeks the second apart or again was sometime between march and june of two thousand and one and when on cross examination it was revealed that she had in fact apart on the third occasion in the year two thousand she was asked to explain why didn't you include this additional departure on the rect examination and she said i don't remember that day so with respect to that third departure we simply don't know the date so it is possible depending on how long that metal trip was that it could reach one hundred eighty well we don't know the duration of the third trip in two thousand which could be as much as ninety days i believe or somewhere in that range the first trip assuming that she was accurate in that sixty days that was just for the for the two thousand and one trip but for the two thousand trip that was revealed on cross examination she said i don't remember the dates of that trip so they're simply there's kind of no beginning and ending point for that meddlesome government not have records as to when people leave and when they come they're not necessarily honored because it was beginning of the individual hearing on september ninth two thousand and nine immigration judge pacifically identified that your continued physical presence is going to be an issue in this case and there is a method by which aliens can obtain their travel documentation from the department of homeland security it's online you just submitted online requests and they can give you information for the last five years if you want any information beyond that then you submit a fire request and you can collect that information on or sent to the extent that petitioners thought that entered on some passport from which he doesn't know how he obtained or or others for his departure but he doesn't know first initial entry oh i thought he entered his but this is no he testified that he came in on someone else's passport that he doesn't courier but the state department had also issued guidance to its consular offices the year before that nonimmigrant visa application should not be denied for substantive reasons which was done here at two fourteen the reason without for the issues of mr camarota i know one of the issues that the b a a had said was that he had failed to adequately corroborate the initial entry in the first ten years and i know that he had presented which which is in the record  postmark letters that were sent to him before the time it doesn't show the specific date that he entered but it's dated before the ten years on the notice to appear and neither the immigration judge nor the board of immigration appeals said that that evidence was inadequate it was incredible it somehow fabricated that so i think when he provides the corroboration if they're going to demand more corroboration they need to explain why what he gave wasn't enough and i think when you're talking about someone who is in the country without u s citizenship without a green card a lot of social security card ten years or fifteen years before they're in court i think it's pretty reasonable to say that a person is going to be able to have a phone book of credit cards and utility bills and the kinds of things that a u s citizen would have and that that you know absent an explanation as to why that evidence is incredible or implausible