may please the court i met adam on behalf of the petitioner i'm going to reserve one minute per bottle the board of immigration appeals affirmed the adverse credibility determination finding that the immigration judge pointed to specific in co but the two reasons that the board pointed to were both fundamentally flawed one the id relied on the fact that mr bosa did not disclose his fear when he was questioned by the border patrol officer however mr bush had explained that he was afraid to talk about his sexual orientation when he was asked in front of those other individuals he was detained in a group setting and he was asked if he had a fear in front of other individuals from haiti now both the immigration judge and the board acknowledged that he had explained he was afraid to talk about his fear in the open setting to the border patrol officer yet neither the immigration judge nor the board even bothered to address why that explanation was not credible and this compels reversal for two different reasons st this court has made clear time and again that where there time and again this court has said the agency must explain why the proffered explanation is insufficient yet neither the board nor the immigration judge even address that explanation this alone requires reversal but it's more than that the kill the case law from this court as well as the agency's own guidance require that the agency take great care when dealing with sensitive claims of this nature and especially when they're using the failure to reveal those details as a basis for an adverse credibility determination and the agency again does not address this and we cited to the court's decisions you vers applicant at the airport failed to reveal that she had been raped and the court rejected the adverse credibility determination based on the failure to address those sensitive details counsel i am a question busson stated in brazil that he received a humanitarian visa that was valid for five years and also that he was a permanent residence are these two statements inconsistent  i don't know if they're inconsistent and that is because i don't know exactly how brazilian immigration law works whether those are in compassing over lapsing statuses or if those are completely separate sounds but what i do know and this is the nd basis that the that the board relied on is that mr bush provided the agency with his passport and provided the agency with the permanent and if it was permanent the board should have found that qualifier that constitutes a firmer settlement and then it would have been on him to demonstrate why he qualifies for one of the two exceptions to firm or settlement there what your view there was no inconsistent testimony from him regarding his status in brazil no no i do see his statements were inconsistent i think he made ignorant characterizations of his status but he provided the documentation to the court that allowed the court to make the legal determination and that's i think the key point that it was a legal determination he wasn't hiding the ball this isn't a case of someone who said i won one had they had a visa and then later  said he didn't have a visa he always admitted he had some status and he provided the documentation which showed what his status was so he wasn't attempting to deceive anyone later when he obtained legal representation he said well yes this was a limited visa it was for five years it didn't confer a permanent status on me and so yes that contradicts what he st said when he was on represented about it being a permanent resident but but isn't the agency entitled to rely on the statements that he made because he said he admitted to being a permanent resident in the credible fear interview and the asylum application but then declaration he said it was a temporary resident why is that not an inconsistency that the agency can rely upon because all that demonstrates is his own ignorance time and again for example i have clients come to my office and say i have asylum they show me their work permit i look at their work permit and they don't have asylum they've been granted a work permit while their application is adjudicated they're not lying to me they don't understand that every bit whether or not you have a file it is a much more complicated question than whether or not you are a permanent or temporary resident and he changed it after the consequences became apparent after he saw a lawyer and realized what the consequen consequence was of saying a permanent resident that's how the agency certainly could interpret that couldn't it i would respectfully disagree that it's a much more complicated inquiry as to whether he has asylum i myself have tried to decipher the brazilian laws to figure out exactly what his status has well could you tell us the difference between a humanitarian and a regular visa i'm sorry what is the difference my understanding is that a regular visa you are already on a permanent track whereas a humanitarian visa you have to take subsequent steps you have to show that you have qualifying employment in order to then after those five years obtain lawful status isn't that what he claimed then after he got a lawyer that is what he claimed after he got a war initially he provided the documents which showed what his status was and he said this gives me permanent residence but with that i couldn't work and then later on he explained yeah that si visa for four or five years and i would have had to have a job in order to keep that on but even if even if that qualifies as for resettlement and i'll be very frank that a humanitary b c that's an unsettled question on remained that could still qualify as for resettlement he would still then have the opportunity to demonstrate not whether or not he actually qualified for firmly selman the issue is whether or not he was credible in his testimony regarding his status and that's the issue not whether or not we have to go through all of a the permutations of how one gets to be a permanent resident but was he credible in his representations to the agency and i think it's kind of a red herring to go to whether or not he actually qualified for permanent rese immigration judge nor the board actually addressed the legal question and they took the easier path exactly they and they didn't have to make a determination on firm resettlement if the adverse credibility determination stands up so they didn't have an obligation to make that rule and you would prefer that that ruling be made but that wasn't required if the adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence but an adverse credibility determination has to include an intent to deceive it can't just include a misstatement if someone doesn't understand the contours of their legal status they are not deceiving the court when they make misstatement and here when he obtained legal representation when he was provided with the expertise necessary to more fully explain his status he did so that's not a misstatement to i'm sorry a misstatement is not a  an attempt to deceive and that is why we have to look at the fact that he provided the passport he provided the visa if he had simply said i don't know what i have here it is then the agency would have gone forward but instead they focused on the fact that he on the one hand described as permanent residents and on the other hand described it as a humanitarian visa why it's a myth that's irrelevant the agency had the documentation that the judge needed make the legal determination tells you you're down to thirty seven ok thank you thank you please the court energy both on behalf of the attorney general this court to deny the petition for a view because substantial evidence supports the agency's finding adverse credibility finding but let me just interview that he didn't understand the interpreter and there were other he sions in the room and that's why he did not discuss his fear of persecution immigration judge and one hundred and fifty three mentions that there are other haitians in the immigration officials maybe i misunderstood your question i apologize what was i don't understand they are quote public officials i'm sorry post i do not understand your explanation language says it at the top and he is given the warning if you fear or have a concern about being removed from the united states or about to be sent home you should tell me so during this interview because you may not have another chance he was warned this could be your last chance is there an opportunity moved to a private setting i don't know if it's a room a private setting and then he said are you willing to voluntarily make a statement at this time he said you know that for a fact when you look with that their title to a private room if they ask for not want to discuss my sexual orientation however he also claims another fear of returning to brazil which was his haitian ethnicity he never mentions that at the border interview either so his ex for i don't get your point well if you're in a room with one hundred other haitians and you fear discussing sexual orientation a sensitive matter is much different than if your discussion and discussing in a room of one hundred other haitians they hate haitian ethnicity but he still didn't mention anything that has border interview he four times so what problems do you have no do you fear return your country no would you be harmed if returned to haiti no do you fear returning to a country based on your political reason religious they even provided him a catchall where he had an opportunity to mention anything including that i fear returning to brazil because of my haitian race he still said no and this court has a line of cases which distinguishes between vague outline of i was mistreated but i'm going to miss one or two pieces of information and affirmatively denying that you feared anything and this court outlined that just distinguishing that distinguish those two situations in the garcia case in the zoo case which petitioner cites this is a case where he affirmatively denied having any fear at the border interview constantly ask you if we agree with opposing counsel that there was insufficient explanation given as to why the statements were found not credible do you lose no because i think you could also go we only need one ground and agency only needs one ground  court only needs one ground to uphold the adverse credibility finding there were three and consistencies his permanent resident status which petitioners trying to blame the governor of the agency for not making a firm resettlement issue this is not at issue here as this court mentioned he did not keep consistent as to whether he was a permanent status he changed his story credit for he got a lawyer at which he now has an incentive to change the story as this court noted the his now he has the his story straight the permanent resident status he didn't ever discuss a fear of returning to haiti do you agree with counsel that in order to be a contradiction there has to be some element of  c and once he found an attorney he did have the intent to deceive is what the government would argue that now he knows that firmer settlement will bar him from asylum and now he's changing his story he said there were three yes inconsistency is the one was whether or not he feared returning to haiti the nd is on the permanent resettlement what's the rd fear of returning to brazil so he never mentions anything at his border interview anything related to sphere returning to brazil at his credible fear interview he never engines anything about fearing returning to brazil for being ok he only mentions his haitian ethnicity and that he was unable to work because of he was haitian and then it is testimony at his merits hearing with an attorney he says he referred fears returning to brazil because of his haitian ethnicity and because he was gay three times  changed his story again and he used that as this court noted he said that the haitians were in the room with him and he used the excuse of the criminal interpreter however there is no evidence of that he said that assessed the creole interpreter didn't work and then i had to use someone else to speak spanish there's no evidence of the son on the record this is birth petitioners burden of proof to prove that he was credible this is a substantial evidence standard petition to the border patrol agent because the interpreter did not speak creole well and he had difficulty understanding the v a and i j both dismissed this explanation  ever used another name if yes what is the name you have use he only answers yes however he consistently stated elsewhere that creole language the interpreters name and it was employed by eighteen to the telephone company on page two hundred and twenty six he says the haitian the haitian who spoke on the phone did not speak creole well well if he was using a spanish interpreter how is there a creole interpreter not being used well his testimony remains inconsistent and then he admits to a call going through the telephone so petitioner has not met his burden proof in showing that he was credible i will take any additional questions at this time i think th and sword bound by the fact that the one the agency did not explain why it was insufficient for him why was an not credible that he was afraid to talk about his sexual orientation and to the agency's reliance on his inconsistent statements regarding his legal status in brazil but as we've stated he provided the documents he was previously on represented and in fact it would defy the concept of providing legal representation if a person were penalize after four for providing additional details once they get weevil representation this court has time again recognize the complexity of asylum process and how it needs the guiding hand of legal representation to go through that process and the translation issues that this court is just referred to only reinforce that the statements made at the border or not statements meant to deceive or with an intent to to trick the agency he provided the agency with the documentation to make the legal to determination thank you thank you counsel thank you both counsel for your helpful arguments in this case the case just argued is the mid if one decision by the court