story in this matter my client mr about a right was denied his due process rights to a fair hearing his testimony his declaration his documentation was given no wait the immigration judge looked specifically to see what was missing in his documentation and rendering her decision she never ever confronted informed or told my client at any time during the proceedings there was anything missing she gave no weight to his declaration no weight through his sworn testimony which was consistent or through his corroborating documentation she in on the documentation corroboration on words or dates that were missing she never looked at the documents as a whole you haven't looked at them cumulatively basically in this circuit my fine is allowed and is meant to be given notice if there's a defect and no time did he present his brother if you provide a declaration of his brother or status brother was going to testify but i'm going to make sure i understand what your are you are you saying that his his testimony was consistent with the medical notes because that seems like what the i j seem to focus on one of the things that the  immigration judge seemed to focus on and it does appear that the medical notes were somewhat inconsistent from what the mr barr i said i n his testimony and then also previously he said he fell on the medical notes of the mr potter i fell on the road and they take it completely amid any injuries regarding his head or to his head  and to his body which seems inconsistent from what he described happened in two thousand and ten that's correct counted there were notes he was never confronted with those notes he raises it for the first time in a decision if she didn't specifically narrow ourselves on the medical notes we did mention there was no medical report and medical notes on the medical reports so we don't know what the medical report would say because he was never asked for a medical report do we even know if there is what you are now calling a medical report no we don't know if there is one you weak as he was a refugee he tried to provide and meet his burden by stress money and try and bring whatever documents you could work out he was affiliated with the united nations he was a human rights activist he tried his best to get whatever documentation he did he tried to get police reports he tried to get other records which verify the content of his claim as well as the p was i noticed of that the ideal decision comes down in early august and our render cision comes down later that same month did you ask the i j a to reconsider in light of ran no but we did ask to be and we provided the b s that was the first notice of the documentation we provided the additional documentation that the judge jury and the why couldn't it have been provided at the first hearing and they failed to consider the country report and i'm not sure i understand that with respect to the cat claim well i'm because it clearly did consider the cat and the country court i was considering it in the issue of credibility whether it's plausible what he was saying whether there were in fact militant maoists aggressive terrorists at that time looking and seeking out opponents of the communists in the pilot that time and in the two thousand and eight report his testimony is verified objectively it was towards the credibility as compared to the convention against torture claim as the issue really was adverse credibility and the judge never considered and was meant to have considered the reporter as well that's to testify to see if his testimony was plausible and believable she never considered anything that was consistent with this testimony is what we're trying to say no ot to also mention one one thing rather seems to me of the who was a little unclear as to whether or not she would have found incredible had there been corroborating evidence i'm not sure that she said i need the cooperation because she otherwise incredible well the immigration just pointed out that she did not find credible because she found some of the critical documents did not jibe with his testimony which undercut his claim in fact early in her decision she actually refers to the alleged harm as an overarching concern it was a matter of where she said why i believe he was involved in this but not this they asked there are certain aspects of his claim that he tried to buttress with documents that she simply did not believe were resulted in her not believing the claim but regarding ron itself and even the thrust of what ron's trying to get because the thrust of notice in general is to prevent surprise that's generally the case in any area of law the reason we have noticed prevent unfair surprise which issue was asked happens there is initially the d h s s says to petitioner you have a brother in the united states correct yes does he know about these things answer yes continues he knows about my difficulties with the mouse my brother knows about the proper struggles i went through the questions and continue he lives with you yes finally the immigration judge steps in for a question where is why didn't you bring him to court today the d h s continues and over the course of the state of the transcript the supposedly knowledge of business rather starts to get walked back in the us saying well maybe he doesn't know anything maybe he had to work today the immigration judge in response to an objection overrules it continues a lot of inquiry got where he is in his availability that day saying that it goes to credibility the d just think continues the questions they press on for seven more questions even beyond gratian judge saying i'm going to allow this line of inquiry it goes to credibility after that there's no redirect immigration judge offers redirect this would have been an opportunity particularly under rent not just for notice but an opportunity to say well this is what to explain what happened to in this case an accredited witness and if you need to provide additional information in the form a crime or whatnot there's been a sixteen day continu immigration judge noticed this new notice in her decision at page one twenty five the record stating in the interim between the two periods there had been no motion to continue she notes that in her decision to say this still didn't come forth we discussed it on his appeal to the board when this matter father or petitioner again as he's discussed files a motion to remember i want to also point out to the court that the four documents submitted none of which were what the immigration judge mentioned in her decision so even again to the extent that he's raising a hue and cry that i did not i could not have possibly seen despite being asked all these questions and despite declining up to redirect that i would need to fill this information he still did not plug the corroborative hole in the immigration judge or struggling with but let me also quickly go let me just back up a little bit so do you concede he should have been mr potter i should have been given a chance to explain the medical notes the medical the medical notes i'm wanting to back up those i mean yeah i know i'm just trying to change your argument so do you can see that under our case law that mr batter right should have been given a chance because you argue in your brief in support of the adverse credibility determination that the i chase found him inconsistent because of the medical notes write this one of a few are you in this case this was a documentary inconsistency it wasn't that he testified early in that in the proceedings i never lost consciousness during the beating i was completely aware of the whole thing and later on says i wasn't conscious which case certainly in the course case would say wait a second you said earlier you had not lost consciousness now you're saying you did what's going on there in this case this is in documentation the russian judge reviews and sees doesn't jibe together but even still of course he does not i'm sorry is that an answer to my question or no answer to my question you're are not i mean this is the case is that when somebody is determined to be in you know non credible they should be given a chance to explain whatever the fact is that the i j a this relying on here it's the medical notes and it seemed like from your briefing look like that was one of the main reasons that you were saying  point the brother and has from the beginning to say that the lack of notice about that you're going to want my brother to come testify has been the foundation of his claim about a run violation and no notice and yours and you're so you're focusing on the brother now we are because that's what he raised to the board and so it's very difficult if he doesn't go to the board and say these are the points that i didn't raise or that i should've been notified about he's using notice is an overarching issue to be sure certain and  the adverse credibility determination the crux of the brother not true because it seems like it's just if we find that he was consistent are he wasn't the medical records didn't deem him to be not credible and should be given a chance to you know answer that how is he otherwise not credible the police report also as well you are to support which by the way again pages one fifty two one fifty three of the other transcript which are before the first question has even been asked on direct examination the government raises an objection and says he's trying to submit a purportedly government document he hasn't authenticated it but fischer's own counsel's tells immigration judge essentially i am sure counsel will follow up with this i will ask so and i'm on these pages where exactly are you reading from transcript pages or quickly then turn to record who just won twenty four one twenty five the immigration judge points this out in her decision she says educated document the police case does not mention the abduction and a lack does not mention the presence of the gun there is one thing the police but i thought you were talking about authentic asian rather than what the document actually says well honor what happens is he then does not give it necessarily the way that he would like to to have provided because because he did not think a docking which petitioners counsel stated at the transfer page one fifty two one fifty three that it could go to w she says the absence of the brother of his failure to testify severely undercuts his testimony but she's now holding it against him now for not having made some motion between the time she says the record is closed and the time that she announces her decision saying that it cut severely against her credibility your brother didn't testify i'm i'm i'm i'm mistaking what happened well your honor we think what happened that the immigration judge and the chess question petitioner extensively i  will attach to that given his other testimony given the record that he puts in and so on so the run argument would be until she comes out and says the absence of a failure of your brother to appear and to testify severely undercuts you know sense of what his parents might have told him but he obviously was not there and the passport information you provide later shows that correct now as far as what counsel just mentioned there are three things i want to just bring to the attention and  there's no objection made to any of the documents so i don't know what counsel's talking about the plant occasion government counsel and the judge admitted every document into the record without objection so once it's admitted without objection why should it be authentic there was no objection graves and nor any issue of weight so all of the group exhibits were admitted in the beginning of the hearing so wait a minute i'm on page one fifty two this is mr stern the government lawyer i'm about the middle of that page transcript and zero zero one four and so forth so what's the what's the objection to that i'm reading on one fifty two because it says the government's going to object any type of reliance on them what's what's in them refer to weight the police report states he was beaten by the maoists on march tenth is very sad i mean on march ninth if you're going to read a document read it and it's going and directly the police verified this united nations worker was beaten maoists and money was stolen so where's the way to that and when she was about i thought but i think you're overstating the matter when you say there was no objection the government very clearly says i'm objecting to them after but it wasn't raises an issue by government counsel that the police report was an inconclusive document that was raised by the judge in her written decision after closing the hearing the issue of here is why not give his his documents any weight you're correct if you're looking at both ways you're weighing in at this time you want to but the judge never weighed it she never weighed any of his documents or gave it any weight whatsoever she was just looking at what was wrong what was missing  says there's nothing there was provided it is letter from unesco from the united nations clearly indicates he was kidnapped beaten and robbed by the mouse ok thank you ok thank both sides for their argument