the clock the board of immigration appeals and immigration judge erred in denying the buy in families applications for asylum withholding and relief under the convention against torture in two thousand and three and erred in denying those applications again in two thousand and fifteen specifically the board an immigration judge erred and denying or failing to appropriately consider relief under the convention against torture in both twenty million thirty two thousand and fifteen this case was remanded from the th circuit prior to a review of the two thousand and three decision and the bands were denied appellate review of that decision we are reviewing renewing those arguments at present irrespective of any adverse credibility determinations cat is a non discretionary decision based upon the documentary evidence in the record the petitioners clearly established their ethnically armenian christians the original of the church letter confirming the marriage was right up to the department and considered by the judge it is not disputed that the buy ins are christian documentary evidence submitted an oath three dollars nine cents and decay christians are persecuted on account of their religion in iran and have a heightened there were also additional news articles and reports but primarily the state depart report does confirm the treatment of christians in iran we have a case that i know you're probably  by versus holder also involving an iranian family iranian woman and there she had been here for about a decade but she was also part of a disfavored group in iran but the reason she was an able to meet the high cap threshold was because there had been no individualized threat against her where where does your son client stand because of that case  is did make an argument that they had previously been harmed i know that there was adverse credibility determinations but we would also say that those determinations made by the judge are iranians in light of the state department reports factor that would lead them to be questioned more intensely upon their report return or deportation to iran so that would be a factor and the factors listed by the board of appeals and matter of  ga include persons who exit of the country illegally persons who are identified as a member of a minority religion and persons who have a link the absence from iran so in the case that you cited she said she did not have a fear of returning to iran whereas our petitioners have said they left under a fear they left illegally and they continue to have a few help me understand why you believe the  timeliness you know the asylum issue the one you're sorry you're the one your issue is tied to the adverse credibility finding and i think that the credibility determination was erroneous for a few reasons the statements made by the petitioners in testimony are actually confirmed by the state department report in that  he for one thing regarding the date of the prison what date he the trial took place two places on that document say that it was on april th one place as it was april the  th mr by and didn't even have access to a lawyer much less to a calendar while in evin prison which is noted as one of the most notorious prisons in iran it's in the state department port as being notorious for routinely torturing people so his explanation that it was just a typographical error and that he relied upon that error is plausible i i think that's true given what the country reports have provided and the other information the difficulty we have is the statute one thousand one hundred and fifty eight which really doesn't let us reweigh or look at substantial evidence in terms of the credibility findings on that  determination do you have some means by which you think that we're not bound by that statute well i think that the the credibility determination is reviewable because it was how they denied the asylum because the immigration judge and the board said even without the one year issue we would still deny the asylum one credibility so the if the credibility determination is found to be erroneous and other evidence would support the conclusion they should be eligible for report and the documentary evidence for example the school report that the children provided which shows that they had an english language assessment and may of two thousand would indicate that they had recently entered the united states and that confirms their testimony or the parents testimony that they entered in april of two thousand that's a business record it wasn't made in and just patient of immigration litigation it was these parents came to america and rolled their children in school so that is i would think when the judge was looking at the case you know she does determine demeanor she does have the opportunity to do that in person but the state department report does confirm what he's testified to that the judge found implausible that mail is searched it wasn't safe to mail documents that the prison takes place without lawyers that it is possible to bribe government officials to get people out of prison all of those things that the judge found impossible are actually in the record in the state department report and confirmed by our own government and i would reserve my time to make ninety nine alleged incident involving his neighbor homa provided substantial evidence supporting the adverse credibility finding on which the board denied withholding of remove will certainly nothing that compels the contrary f and finally on the issue of cat mr bob a on do not present that as an issue to be resolved before the immigration judge and in any event the evidence in the record reflects that  event the record evidence doesn't compel a finding that he would be singled out for tortured so to address each of these in turn the st fact we know about mr bob ion is that he filed for asylum in january two thousand and that's the events involving his and neighbor homa which is to say his written document said on the same day he entered her gifts and she proposed marriage to him he  had two further contacts with her after that point involving payment for a car he saw into her brother it is testimony he failed to well to discuss these he initially said no he had no further contact after she proposed and he had no further contact until the trial when it was pointed out to him that his statement had said otherwise he then reaffirmed the statement but that was that presented its own problems because that had him contacting home at a time where he was allegedly in jail awaiting trial in i think after trial perhaps in tehran and that clearly wasn't the case so after it comes up on appeal and then get provides a further explanation than what he said well actually the story had not been explained to me really what had happened was he moved the dates on some of the things to the survey happened before the marriage proposal and he said actually and my wife was the one who contacted home on my behalf when i was in prison some of these things we know not to be true he said the story was not explained to him we know that's not true because his asylum interview there were account so there is substantial evidence and the record doesn't compel a rejection of the adverse credibility finding finally as to the issue what do you make of the materials in the country reports by the state department i mean the are any of the government here is that the country we're dealing with is probably at the top of the government's list terms of countries who are repressive and who are state sponsors of terrorism all over the middle east top of bad actors that's right and that kind of government does not by itself establish an applicant's eligibility for relief or protection from removal as the no to a body case no again as far as i read the documents mr bob and presented to the immigration judge they talked about problems for evangelicals problems for a positive it's from islam and they did not discuss the longstanding armenian christian community that that exists there i mean the fact very fact that he has a and just going back to the convention against torture claim we just wanted to emphasize that that doesn't is not affected by any adverse credibility finding if that is the court's decision or if that is not reviewable by this body then we believe that which shows that travel is restricted for religious minorities and permission is required to leave that social media is monitored and the persons or question that returning residents are questioned upon their return when taken in conjunction with matter of ga which says that persons who are questioned by authorities upon their return are routinely imprisoned and tortured i believe that that supports a finding that cat would be appropriate in this case if the adverse credibility determination is not reviewable  i'm totally sympathetic to your clients given their situation but the question is can they be distinguished in any way from anyone else who is a christian who escaped iran because they would be returning is deportees they would be returning under brought back by the government of the united states they would not be returning voluntarily they would come to the attention of the iranian government because they did leave illegally they didn't have any passports they were didn't receive permission to leave and because of their now links the absence from the from the country and because they came to the united states as opposed to a country such as france or germany which may be more friendly to the iranian regime there's no for the questions i would yield thank you thank thank you both for your argument this morning but i am versus boris submitted