case tell me how you say that i tried my last name no i got your st th government of russia the red notice it's obvious sketchy at best concludes mistakes about basic information like the issue date of mr ducting tim's passport he does not identify the arrest warrant or the court order which is the basis for this red notice allegations without any support so how do we ok that the red notice sort of came in at the last minute and if i understand the government's position position at the time just basically said here it is give whatever weight you decide what you want to do with it that's so the question that i have i understand that your client was found to be credible correct and you put in certain evidence that these red notices are not necessarily reliable when it comes to russia so do a review to be i terminate and that there are serious reasons for believing that mr has committed a serious nonpolitical crime outside the united states as a conclusion of law or is that a finding of fact i believe it was in the conclusion of law because that that they based on that  the the st i think the court of the did me question judge and to be i should have addressed the burden issue because in the end this this issue never came up during the proceedings no one ever mentioned that the red notice was a problem in terms of that in terms of the bar there the government said give it a limited wait they did question him about it but they never really said well this could make you a negligible so have you gotten any more information on i know i realize this is outside the record but have you got any more information on this red notice that you know your honor but you don't know what other evidence could be pursued let's just say we agree let's say hypothetically if we were to agree with you and say ok just putting that in there without anything more isn't substantial evidence go back and look at this and look at it more seriously you don't know what other evidence would come in no your honor i actually would be the government's burden to show some evidence before the burden shifts on us under the would you want a case though there is no evidence whatsoever that red notice is just an allegation it's stablish is no facts whatsoever so but it's not sufficient are you saying that you just went here or if it's not sufficient does it come back and say we want to know more about this i think we win on this issue because the government had its chance to present the evidence and they and i have rulings from the immigration court on those issues no we don't have unclean it back in response to judge calendar question again this is what i'm struggling with one thing to say isn't eligible if we say that error on this record then it seems to me and i want to hear your response it seems to me the correct thing to do is to remain and to reach the merits that would be one choice your own yes well why wouldn't it be the only choice if the court didn't rule on it before well then we don't we're not usually fact we don't do what the records what evidence just in the record that he would be tortured as opposed to criminally prosecuted if he's returned it seems to me that your argument is not very strong on the cat well of course that is there are no there is there are a lot of evidence there's a lot of evidence in the country reports where it says they torture people in prisons and so we know for sure that he will be imprisoned and so he will be tortured and there's no for sure he would be imprisoned yes because  if he prosecuted we don't know he would be and president well he will he will be detained at least he will be taken to jail as soon as he arrives there ok so whether he arrives that or cat evidence then  from that case while you're on the beloved case st of all it's a very interesting choice by the b i a because it's not even a published decision and in that case the respondent in that case a criminal trial in the united states and there were there were testimony from the different witnesses a from his a former partner a lot a lot more evidence a lot more evidence than that there was a record  business associates also testified against bail over in that case so there was a lot more there is no case on point there's no case that i would like for holding that applicants eligible for immigration what this was about and the judge found him credible so he was he was a credible witness and he had actually testify though to put it in his declaration before disappeared no this was even issued that they had about his business and all of that so i am aware of all that evidence let's assume hypothetically that he was found not credible what would that be a weaker position for you to have no because it still might not be because he was found not credible then the red notice wouldn't be up against his testimony that he had been harassed over his business whether it wouldn't be because i think we're trying to focus on the positive credibility determination their claim yes actual case stronger absolute he was found not credible hypothetically you would be in a weaker situation would you not hypothetical where someone would loose and you lose credibility if you can't see that hypothetical no you are not i do see that hypothetical i understand that i agree with you that the case that  yes it would be a week ok that's only things that i would i want to say i want to stress that the government has the burden to show some evidence in the case that indicated there was a crime was committed at your point because this is what my client a he was found credible and in his testimony he did testify as to problems with the f s b and he was getting audited and there were all sorts of he was there is that in the evidence so and when you put the red notice in you said hey here it is for whatever you wait you want to do it is there any precedent out there that would make someone in based on solely on a red notice there is no precedent ok so why not here do you have any more information about this red notice never does not more information on the residence you could get more information couldn't but we'd have to get it from the russian government and that might be difficult to imagine but we have not reached out to russian government this case well what if there was evidence in the record i think in an article that was that was put into evidence by that that the russians are known to be less than reputable about issuing visas and there have been instances where they've you know they just keep pushing them until someone will accept the red notice but so and probably in this stand age there are we might we might have some skepticism of the russian government about that so what i mean do you think that that red notice is enough the government believes that right now this is enough when you look at it but what if they made it up and there's nothing more like it and i think and and belov even though it's not precedent for this there was quite a bit more in the record given that we must defer to and his story well it's really the government and the agency found it less persuasive than the red notice because a its opponents by using by seeking to abuse the interpol system must be something more because certainly not every red notice base of russian origin is void you know the issue well i don't think we need to go that far certainly but what i'm looking at is the positive credibility of terminations and his story to summarize by saying you know his story of the events leading up to this and then we do have as you indicated some concern about red notices generally and then this particular red notice has some discrepancies on the face of it and it doesn't have what other notices might have more back up to explain you know the nature of the charges and so that that constellation is pretty concerning to me i think in many of the other cases that mr started there is other there's more credible that there's nothing from this that i can't tell that it they're not talking about the same thing and so why didn't that couldn't that shift back to the government to say well you've got to come up with a little more i you in some instances and then there was also the article that said that russia's been known to issue last incredible red notices well actually when the media articles don't actually cite a single ins has not caught russia trying to manipulate the system so what i mean are there any articles from the financial times says that only three percent of red notice applications are reviewed in any detailed sounds like very little review it's almost a rubber stamp and there are some examples where it has were turned out to use a broader case where were they turned down several times but it seems like that's the exception rather than the rule the majority of these generals are just think differently i think it showed there is a rule that interpol has issued or that russia is able to abuse the system has to be some evidence that it has successfully done so in this case do you think a typically have as a level of detail we do know there's different levels of notice is that interpol provides this is the highest level so this is one of the lesser categories like what is a red notice is the highest honors i believe orange below it and russian government's attempts and as you know if you were called upon to show more than that to just for to so that it's not a preacher middle situation you would you would be the only one that had access to that i mean you could call the state department or you could do something like that because obviously you know i don't think any court would have any interest you know sometimes we get these cases where people ask for asylum and say that they would be persecuted and it turns out that they're like eichmann or something there and they're  persecutor and there would be and no one would want to stop someone from going back to a country to be persecuted for war crimes or or to get asylum wrongly or anything like that we don't really have that situation here  mean if if if this is really if if it does really indicate that it's something there's something there i think of course that would be appropriate to deny asylum r the problem is russia correct if this is a red notice issue based on a rush of the british origin or french origin i don't think we'd be having this discussion of one from china i don't confront me about her but it's it's a problematic country when it comes to interpol and that's why we're here having this debate right about this particular red notice but there's no particular had evidence for petitioner that there's recharges or fabricate in his case besides his testimony it was deemed credible but it's really saying the russian government conspiring against me look how they have conspired against other people but i hear you say right now i mean if you present something and you say do whatever you want with it i mean can you calm can can you represent to this court that you think that it's it's valid this goes to notice well i mean you know obviously you don't want to send someone back on something that's bogus i mean you're the government we wouldn't know you know we expect higher if the government you wouldn't want to do that and  a lawyer at that and so that person just didn't seem to just said well hey i've got this here it is i don't really know anything about it do what you want with it didn't even really advocate for anything with it but just hey i have this discretion to find it not as plausible as the red notice ok what about him being he claims the state less well how do you respond to that that  removal to armenia because you testified that was born and what is now armenian that he served in the army of that country how is that really responsive to his evidence that he state less well  you know under rule statute doesn't have to be or move to a country to which he does that is and i think that's the misunderstanding with petitioner there's other options where he was born being one or his country of last official residence so we're not saying he's a citizen of armenia or sits in he can order supervision at that point because we can't remove him but it's not a system question yeah or russia because he waved his past torture claim in his brief and all he has is general background evidence from state department courts for i mena and so you have to get to russia at that point but russia as well it's based on  that he will be prosecuted and i guess assumes that he will then be carse rated and then once you get into the cars aeration world there are country reports there or there is evidence of torture because it may have been  mention this but not i can form the court that i mean it does not have an extradition treaty with russia and they don't extradite to russia so his fear is that armenia would simply turn him over to russia to be unfounded so there is something in the record not in the r i believe and they've come up with a matching t h s but i looked at myself and there is no extradition treaty now that would be a judicial notice thing if it's not a record  it's one of page five hundred of the c a r commonwealth of independent states and also i wanted to touch up on some things that the government does agree that russia is know nor did they even take the renaldi seriously was the judge will came up with this knowledge ability at the last minute in his decision and there were questions in his answers were found credible and he didn't know anything it he doesn't just claim that he stateless he was also given a document which the government has in its own possession for stateless persons he was given by the russian government when he came to the border and apply for asylum that's the document he presented in the part of the record of your honor so would you agree that he can be sent back to a country of birth regardless of citizenship under the statu armenia that doesn't exist anymore he has no connection to that country legally he went he went to russia government said well you can we can send someone back to where they were born but then armenia could say we don't want him and then that would be the end of the story there but then the government is making mr vincent show that he will be tortured in armenia by designating that country and st of all that will happen and me because he has suffered past