on humanitarian grounds based on past persecution the petitioner provide very detailed testimony of how in one thousand nine hundred seventy two fifteen he was forced to witness the public execution of his cousin and a friend by guerrilla forces because they had  patrol and was questioned as to whether he'd been to member of the grillers or if you killed anyone he did not at that time understand the concept of asylum and he feared he would be beaten if he did not agree to return to guatemala and therefore nevertheless he decided that he had to visit his mother before she died he spent two weeks in guatemala visiting his mother and attempting to enter the united states he was detained by the berg border patrol out of fear that he would be deported to guatemala he client falsely stated a number of things related to his claim for example that he had never left the us never gone to guatemala or mexico since one thousand nine hundred two had not been apprehended burned well but it depends upon what it i mean it doesn't perjury certainly doesn't help his case but it's not always in and interest but it's not necessarily fatal what is what would be fatal is if there was a contradiction in the testimony regarding the basis of what happened to him in guatemala the judge didn't find that the judge said that she found him to be very his testimony appeared very sincere extremely detailed and when the revelation came out abandonment no that's not my point at all your argument seems to be that this was not an important matter that he had lied about and i guess that's what i was questioning doesn't his ability to return to guatemala without harm have a relationship to whether or not he would reasonably be afraid in the future of persecution having to do in other words why isn't that an important lie rather than an important it doesn't  matter it doesn't go to the heart of the issue of past persecution and humanitarian grounds because we have in the past you can still grant asylum even if there's been a total change of country conditions in terms what you have to look at the facts  if they come to the to the interview and they give their testimony you have to take the reasons for the departure into effect in the term and how it affects the merits of the asylum application and here it was for a very specific purpose out and returned it as quickly as he could he's claiming a fear of persecution in guatemala and he doesn't know whether that's going to be as soon as he returns or whether people you know find out about his is presence he stay no longer than was you talk to mr presentations one where you fear that you're going to be sent back to the country and the other that goes to the basis of your asylum claim and his failure to disclose this is not something that really undermines his other testimony the immigration judges did also say that she couldn't view asylum because she said well if yours is an abandonment and i don't know if there's any exception to that because of the of the presumption well the presumption is something which  you don't know to be true or to which there may be exceptions a presumption invites the possibility that there are exceptions and in this case his reason for going back to certainly not something that would defeat a claim to asylum that there are two cases neither of them were in the ninth circuit but the in the government's brief they over a six year period his claim is that the people are still there that and that they have a motive to harm him also in this court's case and thomas reese last year discussed about family based persecution credible testimony and the applicant must also show subjective and objective fear the immigration judge found that the petitioner did not adequately make these showings and denied relief this court can only reverse if it finds that the evidence compels a different result and it simply does not i think the court has already gone over the the the fact that petitioner lied about going back to guatemala and staying there on harmed out this goes to the heart of his claim what could be more at the heart of an asylum claim the questions of subjective an objective here if a person goes back to the country where they claim they're going to be killed that's certainly there are some whether they're really afraid and the fact that they stay there and nothing happens to them certainly bears on the question of whether any fear that they and immigration court to the immigration judge not only that but his own psychological evaluation says that his memory is intact this is a r six zero seven so this there's some discussion i think in the briefs about you know whether he was a victim of stress syndrome but post traumatic stress syndrome but if so even the expert  own expert doesn't seem to think that affected his memory so it has nothing to do with his his falsus which seems to have been deliberate because he realized that if you told the truth it would be bad for climb now that goes that issue the credibility goes to both asylum and withholding also going to asylum is this question of the presumption of abandonment now the regulation of two zero eight point eight which is a quote in the government's brief that page eighteen there's some question about whether the both parts of the presumption allow compelling is a pretty strong and high burden petitioner here testified that his mother was ill and that he went home to see her fearing that she might die however the immigration judge immigration judge was not prepared to accept this explanation without some sort of corroboration now you know if he lied about his reason about going so yes i think i think you know gratian judge was a questioning that we have only his word for why he went back how long he was back what he did while he was back we don't we don't have any way of evaluating any of that and he is a confessed perjurer so why should we believe them that was the immigration judges reaction to  this which seems at least logical and certainly given all that i don't see how you could say a different result is compelled by the record before you  we're there we're just suppose we're willing to step in that we will we were to disagree with you on the credibility spreadable if i take it that you would still argue that he's not entitle them really yes we were still say that because of the because of the presumptions in the regulations there's the two parts i mean the first one says if you don't have advanced parole there's a presumption in the box in the first place and that part of the regulation doesn't even you know say anything about compelling reasons so there's certainly a question as to advance parole under the regulations you're supposed to get advanced parole to go anywhere outside the united states if you're an asylum applicant now the second part is going to the country where you claim  now that provides for the compelling reason aspect but again and yeah if you if you show that you have a compelling reason now in most cases someone was considered  credible and they gave an explanation that the immigration judge might well accept that as sufficient and it would be compelling but in this particular case where you've got a self confessed prefer infront of you i just don't see why the immigration judge should be built you know compelled by the standard to to accept that judges analysis that he didn't think that there was enough evidence in the record even if credible he says this very specifically in the decision or about past persecution and well founded fear but i don't believe that the i j a decision actually reached that for asylum however i'm withholding the immigration judge did definitely address that aspect the immigration judge it's a really extreme case where our you know somebody was like basically put in a closet and starved and sauced father burned to death and i was just really horrendous stuff here ok so some are some relatives apparently were killed at least that's what he says again who knows but even if that's true there's nothing to show in the record that these deaths are harms were connected to petitioner himself in any way all we know is supposedly he was threatened several times you know verbal e and that's hardly enough to come under matter of chen but anyway to get back to the more likely the not so very little physical harm occurred if anything happened to him before he came to the united states the last time he said anybody was looking for him was in one thousand nine hundred six which was the year of the peace statement about these killings there's five or six paragraphs with examples we think we can read your time ok then you'll see what i'm saying thank you very much using the word presumption in the case or it is an exception it's far as a matter of chance the majority of the harm in that decision happened to chance father although there was severe persecution also of chan were clearly indicated family members harm to family members is something that must be evaluated it was extreme it was extreme and having to be forced to watch the execution of family members is also extreme i think for a fifteen year old to be called out into the square