made up story that's not why we're here we're here asking this court to review the immigration judge's decision denying relief to determine whether the immigration judge correctly applied the law and based his factual findings on substantial evidence  as the record shows that didn't happen here rather the order in or below reflects significant legal factual even logical error and is in no means supported by substantial evidence how did the immigration judge care first the immigration judge concluded that certain cravat of evidence was reasonably expected without ever first addressing the issue of whether mrs man's range was credible if her testimony was credible and in their well established ninth circuit law there was no basis to make to man further corroboration from her the court applied in a grown us legal standard and then failed to meet that standard with substantial evidence maybe you can help me  credibility but also basically i think he's saying i just don't find i'm not convinced by the evidence that she does offer that she's met her burden am i reading that correctly well i would certainly agree with your honor that the decision is ambiguous and this court's case i mean it's very clear that where a judge is going to draw an adverse credibility determination where it's going to deem somebody sufficiently batting averages they have a credibility determination any court has to be explicit in saying that somebody is an entirely credible west officially credible does not meet this court's ninth circuit standard now that the judge was attempting to her credible i'm simply deciding as the determiner of the burden of proof that the alien simply hasn't met it here well i think the immigration judge as ultimately  accept the evidence in fact he says when he moves on into the analysis of whether she champ articulation on account of the statutorily protected grounds but this court so so your position is that that's a pretty clear statement at least with regard eighty five of the record immigration judge says there's not sufficient proof of this core they examined the reasons why the judge determined there was not sufficient proof and it must determine whether there was substantial evidence for this reasons and whether that mentoring has a well founded fear of future persist persecution particularly coupled with the evidence in the record that was not addressed there were six exhibits admitted into the record the judge addressed to in its opinion and ignore the evidence showing why that presumption is further supported does not get to go back and address change country conditions such that she will no longer have a well founded fear because they didn't argue that below either from the immigration judge or from the board of immigration appeal exactly the same way that the petitioner have to take the record as it stands the government has to take it moreover they cannot argue reasons outside the record beyond the reasons identified by the immigration judge under the doctrine of s c c versus chain or a quest only does she have a presumption of a well founded fear of future persecution she is also entitled to a presumption that her life or liberty would be threatened upon her return to iran and that presumption also has to be rebutted now certainly under ventura the supreme court's ventura decision case would have to be remanded to determine whether asylum should be granted in the exercise of the attorney general's discretion but as to whether country conditions have changed to such an extent that she no longer has a lot founded fear that issues directly morning you may have a few seconds to set up here ppen well that subject is analyzed extensively in our brief and the nub of it is that the immigration judge never addressed persecution never addressed the question of whether or not persecution and that's true where there there's a specific credibility finding which we reverse for example and then we send it back and say ok now you've got to consider that she's credible that you didn't you need to relook at it here if we say there was no adverse credibility finding then we don't get to that first turn well you still have to do that the service still has to determine whether or not on the testimony there looking at the record there's no not enough proof for the weather finding no showing of persecution no your honor the court judge simply found that there wasn't past persecution does it not if that's what the only thing the judge said is i don't find your evidence sufficient to meet your burden of proof he didn't go any further than that he didn't say assuming that i have heard of one of the elements of an asylum claim it includes the of the elements of a crock if the fact finder decides that the government hasn't met its burden of proof that means that the evidence that was interviewed at the trial simply did not establish by proof beyond a reasonable doubt each and every element of the offense isn't that what he's saying now this isn't a crime but this isn't a criminal case this is a case where the immigration judge the burden of proof if you miss a person how can it be different i mean it's race in cases are different on burden of proof are they well they certainly not criminal cases and you know i'm not a criminal lawyer so i don't know the various intricacies of criminal law but i'm all i'm saying is he denied on the basis that the evidence wasn't sufficient because it was incredible he did not go ahead and say that's not what he said he said there is not sufficient proof of a valid because think about fred what he did he said because the evidence that i don't find her exclusive i don't think just because it could either be one or the other i don't i mean there's not a third ground is there kind of like no determination kind of a draw well the only thing if you find it credible you find not that necessarily her story is true but certainly that she believes her story is true and depends on all the other evidence very strange definition of credibility that the stuff the active definition we've got an objective determination by a fact finder here is  expected you to know that i was wondering about the practical effect of this or whether we did we talked before coming out whether the government might be interested in meeting this in some way if if as a practical matter if you start going anywhere no matter what we decide to certainly has approached oil for mediation but oil is not the only represents the attorney general in the fending the id's decision we don't make decisions with respect to whether or not  the i m f you will talk to the department of homeland security and urge them as your client agency said have a hard hear and if we think that the determination below is supported by substantial evidence then we defend happy to go back at the court's request or order to to to look into the matters that you request me to look into i'm happy to do that i don't want to pass the buck i'm judged so recently asked me what the procedure was was on suggested to oil that mediation be considered an attempt as i recall about sixty days with a lawyer to go back through channels and get an agreement that oil would mediate that dispute your one of the government does not ignore orders of course it's stuff order that suggests well the government generally doesn't ignore strong suggestions either so obviously you know we're  certainly within their right to insist on corroborative evidence and in fact the only evidence the only component of the board's two part credibility determination instead who that was you combine those two cases and you have this case so do you agree with my fair so the fact that you that that it does make a difference whether or not the evidence is reasonably available but for some unexplained reason the alien simply didn't what was reasonable very reasonably available and the same situation is here there is absolutely not the immigration judge here said you know this information is is should be available from iran's which is a relatively open society well he said it was not a closed society he didn't say it was relatively open he simply said it was not a close aside and and the evidence of record does not contradict that i mean iran the fact you have one sentence the country court evidence in iran does not suggest that the evidence that this immigration judge this immigration judge was looking for is not reasonable of it reasonably available they're talking about birth records death records and employment records there's no evidence in this record that iran is the type of society where those records are not as right of the lead up on you personally and if my questions seem a little sharp it's only because i'm a little perturbed at the immigration service here but the immigration judge essentially said he thought you ought to be able to go to iran and get a death certificate for the daughter who disappeared after she was taken away by the ayatollah secret police and we think she's dead but they wouldn't even return the corpse to her and that iran doesn't have birth records that was one of the other problems the immigration judge wasn't sure that this person existed and wanted a birth certificate and the petitioner was able to get a certificate regarding her own i don't think it was a birth certificate but it may well  easily available not to place you know and material and there has to be an explanation for the failure to produce and this court is held in every case since that information outside the united states is almost never easily available to  your observation that expecting a death certificate from women when the courts hadn't been provided is exactly right but for example the judge the where the letters from siblings there were no siblings in iran presumably he meant her children she spun on a literate that is a reasonable explanation that was never addressed by the immigration judge the failure to address or explanations is legal or not factual error but legal error so when you apply an easily available non to pluck it of material standard here there is no substantial evidence for will never be substantial evidence i think it was the government just regular on its mean normally operating society i'm not sure whose definition of normal is a crime but it's certainly no substantial evidence in the record the evidence shows that iran opens people i twice actually three times contacted oil asking them to stipulate to remain and because we can prove this case i'll admit i'll be the first one to make the lawyer below was not a model of good lawyer  story is not made up it's very true and more planes would be happy to prove it i don't think we have to because i think that the evidence that was introduced including the countries have reports and the state department's own reports  claims her testimony which was consistent and never rebutted but we are pleased to go and prove her case and we'll be proud to do so this is a case where what happened this is mandatory and may never be removed in fact mr removal and to not have that piece that this refugee laws were just designed to explore might have changed recognize that sometimes persecution so severe we don't even look to whether there's a well founded fear to more quick points your time is up so if you just finish what the court has requested and i certainly will make that effort and if they tell me that we should comply with the court's wishes as opposed to an order to us on that couple weeks yes fourteen as i'm sure would be fine i mean when you go back to your superiors i'm sure you'll calm this but you're dealing here with a very reasonable panel that tries to follow the law and if you can if you're getting any messages that all from the panel this is the case that we think you ought to meet i understand ok i don't know if all you need to tell understood i guess i'm a little unclear as well and come to some agreeable resolution and ninety nine point nine nine percent of the time will agree if the parties agree we're not we don't have any or in this in this water i'll tell you in the previous case as i recall we deferred submissions for thirty days pending a report from the government lawyer and i think the government working back saying he needed a little more time and it took about maybe sixty days before it finally worked