the primary issue before the court today is forever substantial evidence supports the agency's finding the petitioner fasold failed to qualify for any relief at all we believe the answer to that question is a resounding petitioner is likely begin to be arrested detained and tortured due to his activities and support we have for the r g b t community and their rights unrefuted an independent credible evidence consists of objective reliable state department country reports which this court has found in going to hossa another cases are the most important evidence in a very in considering what country conditions are and different witnesses including a prominent political activist and former cameroon university professor these are all found exhibit six which should demonstrate that there was independent evidence if there had been all the evidence in the record then clearly the judge would have been correct and you see susan so what's the other evidence in the record that nephew's testimony as i understand it was rejected because it was based not on first hand knowledge where we left with your honor we're left in we're left with a lot of evidence and this is objective evidence and some subjective we have the reliable state department reports we have we have both the twenty twelve us state department country report and the twenty thirteen country report which talk about what happened allegedly happened in this that they do not your honor but they do show us what the environment is in cameroon that it's one of the fifty according to a the professor can bring university professor statement cameras one of the fifth worst countries in the world when it comes to human rights violations the t community and in fact they have all their laws still on the books and it's a bigger seen force by the police to go after any individual who supports or promote the rights of gays and and so that is a backdrop that i think that certainly and i don't mean to diminish that certainly this suggests a repressive regime but the test is whether or not those practices would lead one to conclude that your client would be subject to persecuted but in addition and this is contrary to the judge's decision the judge and the board basically agreed with the judge that there was no documents no statements from any of mean because that's another inconsistency in the record because he testified that is why he was arrested that her affidavit said she was not he testified she was i believe it was worded such that that it could be implied that i thought that she stated that there were that they were subject to arrest and again she is not believe in the  also you have to look at the backdrop there in an organization where others are being arrested in the wrong isolation and of course people outside of their organization in the community also the judge interesting the court found the this court found that that there was independent reliable evidence including state department reports among others to demonstrate that the petitioner did warrant relief and your honor also won in that regards when it relates to the standard in the relief with of protection under the torture convention the subjective view of the of the petitioner is not in cameroon and had been involved in the gay rights movement there's the reports the statements as i mentioned from the six other witnesses some at least three as i mentioned confirmed also have it's also important to keep in mind that the judge did and did not find the the petitioners testimony an account about his involvement in the gay rights movement as being  not believable the judge did not find it the only the judge only found a distressed morny regarding a rest and and a detention was not reliable or whether it was inconsistent so we have me have we do have evidence and you know we also we also have  of the evidence in the case and as stated that as i stated the judge said that that none of the statements of the six witnesses mentioned that he had been arrested and that was not correct and there were there were other parts that the judge totally ignored and the board basically followed suit with the judge and accepted the judge's  appears to have testified in inconsistent manner that the person should be given an opportunity to explain and so what you're saying that he cut him off in our view is that the for the mental issue in this case is that mr faso did not testify incredibly about the very basis of his claim which is the past persecution that he allegedly suffer and as we detail in our brief mr foster the story changed over time and it got worse and worse so when he was first questioned about what happened to him in cameroon he talked about a bad thing that were done by members of the public because of his support for gay rights in his declaration all the sudden that change to the government did things to me and it was in his declaration he said i was arrested twice i was detained twice and i was beaten the first time and he says explicitly in his declaration i was not beaten the second time then he gets before the immigration judge and he testifies that i was arrested twice i was detained all we don't know if any of this happened that the record does not support what actually happened it's impossible to say whether some of this happened all of it happened or none of it happened those records support that mr faso a gay rights activists well there's certainly support in the record for that for that position now whether it's true or not we can't say but certainly there is support in the record for that basic proposition why if that's true and even assuming that there is an adverse credibility determination with respect to the cat claim would we still be able to assess whether this the nature of this repressive regime is such that faso would be more likely than not to be tortured or returned well the important thing to remember is that this is a substantial evidence review so one could look at this record if it was a did novo review and say yeah he probably was a gay rights activist probably something bad happened to him it's possible something more bad would happen to him when he if he's returned but that's not the question the question is based on what is in this record did the agency does substantial evidence support their determination that there's not enough here to grant him relief and the answer to that question is yes when this individual had the opportunity for more different times to tell his story and the story changed and changed in a way that makes it substantial evidence supports the concept that he's making it all up now again whether in fact he is or isn't is not the question there is enough here based on his evolving story of the harm that he suffered to find that the yes yes the i j a evaluated the i j a said very specifically he reviewed all of the evidence before him reviewed the documents listened to the testimony and the standard and the i j a did not find him credible and so that is the board then evaluated that determination again looked at all of the evidence and found that there was there was no clear error  determination and it's important to note that the i juz adverse credibility determination was not based on any sort of witness demeanor type of determination it wasn't the i j a did not say well i just didn't like the or something of that nature the i j a said there are these specific contradictions in his testimony and that is certain and the purge found no clear error in that and agreed to look at specific examples that the i j a pointed out and agreed that there's just not enough here to find that this individual is entitled to relief and it's interesting to note that the other inconsisten stage why did you do this you say that you're not yet you say you're taking your life in your hands by being an activist for gay rights why have you done this three of those times he said well my cousin is gray and so i want to support him in his interview before the asylum officer he said my brother is gay so again there's a lot of things here that just don't add up to the point where the agency there  showing quite clearly that cameroon does not treat gay people well we don't dispute that that much is clear cameron is not someone you want to be if you're gay but that does not mean that mr fastow has been persecuted or will be persecuted because there are substantial evidence to support the idea that he may not be a gay activist he may not he doesn't claim to be gay  but that none of this actually happens not saying that it didn't happen but there is substantial evidence to support that so the very fact that cameron is not a hospitable country for gay individuals is not one other point that counsel raised was about the opportunity to explain himself that the our jury did not give mr foster the opportunity to explain himself the record shows that is not true for instance he was asked mr foster was asked how is it that you stated in your declaration that you were not beaten during your second year in detention and yet you just testified that you fossils response to that was that i say that i don't think i said that so again he had the opportunity to explain himself and there is evidence in the record to support that he just did not keep his story straight which suggests that the story may have been fabricated unless the court has any more questions for these reasons we request that the board that the court deny the just a couple of points again the government's argument is focused on put on the dissenters in consistencies and again just like that immigration judge did and just like the agency did their ignoring all the other  independent evidence in fact there was no discussion by the government about any of this and refuted independent reliable evidence that supports the petitioners claims for relief evidence and then not and then we discuss a very small portion of the evidence tends to to fall back and say oh yeah the judge considered all the evidence that's you know conclusion or statements are not sufficient must be supported by the evidence that the judge did not apply the correct standard in a couple of ways judge did not consider all of the  evidence actually going on at the board did not either the board basically accepted the judge's or conclusion conclusionary statement that the judge would consider all the evidence in fact the board even even doubles here are in by saying well there's no additional evidence but it was additional evidence it was never challenged by the government below it was not the judge never questioned about whether the petitioner was actually a gay rights organizer involved in the movement the testimony of his witness was was never a challenge to the testimony of those six witnesses the statements in the country ports were never challenge and also another wait a minute the judge did not apply the correct standard rose judge didn't apply any independent evidence to to determine whether the would qualify under the cat again the judge said well i find it that the petitioner is not credible therefore he doesn't have he's not eligible for the from the torture convention that's totally inconsistent with with this immigration judge and the board must consider all evidence including independent evidence and that even if an individual in it for petitioner is found to be not credible and his testimony be based on inconsistencies but still and i think anyone who's had any exposure with anyone from africa among other countries know that people call a person a brother to me because it may be not even a relative so i don't think we that