issue addressed in our brief which is mr r d's and title mix of withholding and i'm starting here because the resolution of this claim provides the relief requested by mr abdi and avoids the need for this court to address the adverse credibility issue and order to establish withholding of removal and powerful kids must show a clear probability of persecution that is and it is more likely than not that he will be persecuted t pattern and tax he said that he had not shown individualized persecution however under the regulations relevant withholding of removal if an applicant establishes first that there is a pattern and practice of group but produced most of we do leave your honor in page one forty one of the administrative records the immigration judge acknowledged that the evidence in this case demonstrated that mr r d is a member of the bar we had a clan whatever department reports that the barley and clan suffers from a pattern of practice of persecution consisting of rapes looting and intimidation and that they have in fact been shriven out of mogadishu and they have to stay in the your honor this case is like a v ass cross where the court found that credibility was the only issue in this case the b o h here mistakenly assumes that credibility had a bearing on whether or not mr argy was entitled to withholding but in making that determination the cia applied the wrong legal standards this court need not remain because all of the evidence necessary for the determination is in the record and hasn't fact been addressed by the  be persecuted because of his membership and the barley and clan and i can be a basis for a start and that is the withholding of removal is that you have an easier route to withholding removal in fact it's much harder to get to withholding removal save for a part that we're not talking about which is the exercise of discretion by the attorney general but we retain leave so you don't get a start when you can't get withholding remover the stand for that is higher and you seem to be arguing here that well maybe he can get asylum or he can get do not require the precise delineation of the legal claim and here mr obvious claim was always in substance that there was a due process violation and that admission was in fact improper you need to go as far as saying there's a unreliable side of the eye and that speaks for the first factor in which this court held that the government may not place the burden of confronting a witness against an alien on that alien and the government may not shift the interview is not taken under oath and five when we have evidence of linguistic difficulty all of these factors are present in this case it's the government argues that the report is reliable on its face however this  not true the record is not only inconsistent with all of the other evidence in the records but it is internally inconsistent with the handwritten notes that supposedly refer to this thing interview now the government's argument runs it may not rely on not a sound office report standing alone as substantial evidence furthermore the asylum officer in the eye is conclusions from that report in this case both represented evident in the handwritten notes and for the asylum officer just substitute its conclusion about what mr r intended when we have no way to look at a transcript of this interview and no way to know how the interview we report that is inconsistent and contrary to all of the other evidence in the record is it really i mean much of it traction exactly with what your client testified to at the hearing yes there are however the points then it would seem that the i'd share you did not find advice credibility in the facts it's hard pressed to be naive to suddenly step in and say that so adverse credibility and in fact we have a similar situation here where credibility is not relevant to withholding the because you have the persecution of the small group and there's membership in the group but there's no evidence that she's a member of that group the the i j talk about that but still i suppose that if it was remanded and the immigration judge decided based on the record he was a member of the tribe there's still the question of  not a dispute that the petitioner happens to be a member of that group the fact that he may be a liar and utterly untrustworthy doesn't mean he's not a member of that group subject to persecution of sent back so at least theoretically it seems to me you could make out a case for withholding for that matter for asylum short of the attorney general's discretion even if the petitioners found not to be credible as to other subjects well  the now i'm not saying that we're at that point now at least theoretically i don't know why credibility is taken it's not part of the statute you don't have to have a finding that the applicant is credible well petitioner has the burden to prove that it's credible and yamagata i five point one in the and there's not a dispute as to his tribe or his connection it seems to me the fact that he's a liar really doesn't matter because he's still subject to persecution and that factual finding can be made based on other i guess it would go to exactly yeah  finding and then they go on to say that facts that are determined by immigration judge such as credibility are you and they make a determination whether they're erroneous or not my question is whether under x determined by an immigration judge including findings as to the credibility of testimony she'll be reviewed only to determine whether the findings of the immigration judge are clearly  interesting point in this case because the board moved in two thousand and two to administratively close the case and to give him a chance to apply for temporary protected status but he opposed that and he went up ahead with his appeal and so obvious and there's been people in in  not be the case that somebody is a member of this trial has a basis under a legal standard for saying he's got a little founded fear persecution of him that well again i think that goes to first the fact that that assume or at that point it's just explore where all this leads us if we were to reach that decision that the credibility finding is not supported meaning that you would be required to treat them as credible then if you apply that to the board's finding take that and the board finding has to allow or is he not to know how to magically entitled to withhold no it's not because the board did not make a determination that he's a member of that trial but once we try these credible and the board  theoretically i see what you're trying to say although usually when when there's an adverse credibility's from a nation that isn't sustained by our court it goes back with instructions to treat him as credible right and given that the that the government didn't try to make a contest of that issue it's really hard to see if there's anything left seriously to accomplish on the original yeah you know i think i see your point i want butt heads with you on this i think i see what you're saying  just i think that i still think the board should make that decision in the first instance so it may be simply a matter of some of the other court seems to share your impression that that we should be careful about that but i have trouble salim and there is actually there are actually other things that the board could do that they haven't reached you know does all of this together constitute persecution  even if the issues heard someone theoretical that the supreme court thinks it's advantages to send them back to the board and you know if there is a legitimate reason for the board t admitted he never challenge i think that's very significant you never approach you never objected to it in the july tenth master calendar hearing you knew it was that you knew this credibility was going to be in question he knew that the immigration judge was going to use those documents instancing he was he had trouble communicating with the immigration officer and that because there was no interpreter present and that was that was kind of president prejudicial against him or against the government  is that there was no transcript of contemporary no contemporaneous notes there was no transcript of what happened in the style of officer here we have a handwritten notes of the asylum officer the questions and answers and saying the court said they were concerned because all of it all the this consistency is very dramatic and it's their presence i want to interview detailed handwritten notes line by line what was the question and answer given take in the record it says that they thought they might have attempted to rape the sister but she was not raised not as underlined in the it's clearly in the in the in the handwritten contemporaneous notes and that was a quote of the factors in seeing which diminish the there are any more questions say anything that she was not killed they only say they never talked to my sister and yet in the reports of these down law officer we have his conclusion that with mr r d intended it was that she was not harmed