application and the withholding capitation is of the and that there's a lack of substantial evidence in the record to support the findings of fact and the credibility finding by the immigration judge one important right i wasn't the attorney representing the respondent that time i'm not sure at all if any of mr how many lies credentials before the board or before this court for that matter before the immigration court however ok then he he went he got down here to los angeles and he went to the  person he thought was an attorney is that right my understanding your honour's i've seen that there were several attorneys whose names are are on the record and well and then he has hearing before the  and have you spoken with that so called attorney first of all if that's the petitioner is in status for six months then the one year itself the one year old is told during that six month time period and the regulations provide that they should apply for asylum within a reasonable time thereafter so the question just becomes whether or not at the point in time you undertook mr commers representation you were aware for became aware of his history with these practitioners who turned out not to be lawyers etc the reputation of mr alva telling lies very well now i'm off the books and i'm not trying to hurt or help you in this is not one of those television interviews where you get to give the answer you want to give i'd like to hear an answer to my question i'm sorry chuck when you wonder took the represent representation of mr kamar were you aware of his past dealings with these alleged practitioners when i i have to think back on the exact timing your honor and all honesty my impression is my recollection is that the magician came to me right after their case was decided and i initially had to get an appeal off immediately whether or not i get a did you tell the b i g to your best your recollection did you tell the b r d about the history your client and so offered with these prior quote representatives i did not go into any history with respect to the not and not filing his case in time and training your honor at the end of october i'm not aware of that at all and i have i'm very proud of my practice so my reputation before the ninth circuit i have every course the case that i have presented before the judges here i have f the government attorneys have withdrawn that and asked for it to be remanded back to the i a e a because my arguments were consistent with the law and that the board finally recognized that they were in error and they convinced their client i've had other cases time that i'm aware of and after i spoke with the attorney said they recognize that there was a problem then they said contact us and there was there was nothing else and i have not there's been no complaint filed against me there was no complaint filed it is me in that made to the board of immigration appeals one thing p h s attorney said as i recall was that the immigration judge's decision was correct but they did not necessarily agree with a you know there are a lot of things you could talk about in this case but it seems to me that that matter is simply a matter of how you look at it is the quiet staff the employer the class half full does not affect the merits of the case and i think you're that it was filed by yet by by a certified representative government certified that representative and the government had to know that that representative was incompetent that whether you've done a done a search on him or not but what training did he have it's not part of the record i know but i'm asking you as a general matter what training what training do these folks have lawyer can practice for the immigration court all right because they have to be a lawyer and a hysterectomy do they have to be a member in good standing of some bar i believe that's the case well the bottom line here in all these this kerridge is the justice that take place because the government knows that we've got these folks out there that are that are in many ways inco that don't follow the rules that take people's money that don't show up at hearings this kind of a lawyer has been there that have never never had a minute's time with their so called clients and i walk right in at the time of the hearing we know that goes on because he failed to follow the solemn application within one year time period and he provided no extraordinary circumstances or and i think for his family to do so because it wasn't done by some  vella let's assume there was a timely filing and there had been a hearing in the same result had obtained and there was a timely appeal to the  part of the regulations are there yes ok so that's a possibility that can be raised at the b i e level and and when new attorney could come in for a petitioner and say here is what happened to my client and your ok and i understand correctly in this case that the immigration judge addressed not only the jurisdictional issue but i made some findings about credibility that's correct  indians they came over there and for a dollar a day to cut down the sugar cane and now their population is probably a little bigger of the genes and so when the east indians as we know elected  that that's what he said that's what happened i'm easy going to get the person the jam the meat down the throat but in order to carry the burden he has to present testimony that is that it's consistent and believable immigration judge didn't believe in and gave the reasons he listed several incidents that indicate to him that it was not credible well assuming as testimony just assume that hypothetically that his testimony was credible on an incident like this person described as you have to offer more than his own testimony corroboration is is expected if they can be produced and immigration judge in this case felt that he did not pictures right and his religion forbids him to me that's right and it's going here and so this was a pretty vile thing to feel that rose to the level of persecution on the back and answer the judge hawkins question if we are to accept this testimony as credible where there's there's a question as to whether or not what happened the an educated you don't speak our language you know he goes to one of these folks comes in there and represents him he didn't fill that out he said he signed his name but he didn't know how to read immigration judges decision and that there is no compelling reason for overturning the i out and that rationale should be applied to withholding and kept in this circumstance we believe that the respondent obviously has shown that he was a member of a disfavored group that he had been subjected to a belief that past persecution when he was fiji both by ethnic fijians and then again the eating of the beef in the prison we believe rises to the level of torture and would constitute persecution and we'd like to see the court extend that reasoning upside hell because we believe that the situation of the three gnc and strike that actually in fiji art is quite analogous and comparable to the situation of the chinese and indonesia immigration laws are very very complex yes or what would you agree that there is almost as complex as our internal revenue so what bothers me is we've got this very complex area of the law that keeps changing you know every time there's something that happens that might be favorable then we get another law that blocks that we've got a staff of about forty fifty lawyers that work on these much as this but we work i'm a lot now because you know last year or so we only had eight hundred immigration cases and now we got eight thousand