extreme domestic violence and who then fled to this country seeking refuge but whose claims were denied without the primary basis of those claims being considered under this court's precedent for that reason are we m required in the briefs we identified three separate reasons why remain is required here are going to focus on two of them here the first is the failure to mention or otherwise consider the documentary documentary evidence of physical abuse in the record and the second is the failure to elicit much less developed testimony on that abuse from the petitioner so starting with the documentary evidence this court has established standards under the regulations and statutes that govern these types of proceedings for the consideration of evidence in the record for both cat claims and withholding of removal the b i a which is the body under review here has to consider all of the evidence in the record whether it's the totality of the circumstances or as a judge told you wrote in the shrestha opinion all relevant record evidence that involved the petitioner seeking can't relief who submitted to expert reports and the b i a rejected the claim and mentioned only one of the reports in the decision  opinion and this court held that that reflected a failure to consider all evidence and to remain and was required for that reason here we've got one report essentially from a doctor who looked mr teases scars and other signs of the abuse that she suffered and opined in that report that her body shows signs that are consistent with what she was relaying in terms of getting hit in the face with an iron and losing her as the abuse started to increase the child was at risk both because the child physically came in the space of the abuse and was physically harmed and one incident i believe had to go to hospital but also the mother be the harmed also harms the child and in fact as mr teases explained the reason she is here now waiting for multiple years in detention is because she's so afraid to go back that and be killed that her son with then no longer have a mother and so that is at the heart of th here and you want to you want a new hearing yes you are various in which the government would be free to offer additional evidence you understand well i guess we haven't addressed that the government hasn't raised that issue i think that the remained would at yet i would hope that she would i have not precluded myself from serving in that role but we haven't gotten to that point yet ok and one other point which is i do think that the court can remains to be i a e a and give the b a the option of changing the decision based on the current version and if it if it didn't want to do that then it would remain to for a new hearing to the i j a i think that is an available option of the b i found the physical evidence the doctor report and the photos sufficient to demonstrate  and i think that demonstrates she's serious about pursuing these claims she does not want to go back and i think the record shows why and that part of the written for those elements the records simply were not considered i think you look at you look at  in terms of the failure to develop the testimony showed as well all those cases seem to be directly on point here and resolve the issue so unless the court has further questions at this time i'd like to reserve the remainder get the award for of income the form of those for their i did i flew all the way from d c just for this so that you may please the court my name is jeff released appearing on behalf of the attorney general substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that the petitioner failed to present a credible claim for withholding asylum officer during which she testified to the harm that she had suffered from her ex boyfriend as well as to specific about incidents which later became the basis of the average credibility finding she testified at the asylum officers interview that while she was returning home from shopping one day she came across a young girl who had been hanged electrocuted by someone who she called was mr cobb eight o m she also stated that on march nineteenth two thousand and thirteen mr cobb a doe another man both on motorcycles shot at her while she was at a town fair on her case you refer to an immigration judge and she testified inconsistently regarding those two incidents she testified that while she was coming home from work one day she saw a girl who had been tied up and shot him she also testified regarding the march think that they electrocuted and shot part or more the inconsistent than just the weather not tied and hang up could be construed as the same thing but whether someone's been electrocuted or someone's been shot those are different issues regarding the march nineteenth and thirteen incident she testified that on that day her ex boyfriend tried to beat her up while she was at church she was asked why that differed from her statement before the officer regarding mr convey to another man shooting at her and she testified that oh well that was because her ex boyfriend paid mr credo to shoot her the agency consider the petitions explanations that she gave at the time and found them be unconvincing regarding the the is the issue of the girl that she allegedly found to be murdered  incident in particular it's completely different she testifies that the asylum officer that it was a man treating at her on a motorcycle with another man outside of town fair she testified that it was actually her ex boyfriend who beat her up paid the man to shoot her so it wasn't even responsive to that issue turning to the petitioner's cat claim or torture claim there was also supported by substantial evidence the immigration judge looked at much of the evidence which the petitioner points to the regarding the credibility issue whether or not the immigration judge should have asked certain questions whether or not there were translation issues those simply were not raised below similar to the extension argues that the immigration judge didn't provide her with adequate explanation of the procedures and always expected things like that that also has not been raised but if we disagree with you on the credibility issue what what what the result i believe if the court finds the petition to be credible it will be reminded back to the immigration judge because the well the immigration judge had a very large decision also deciding issues like the on account of the nexus things like that the board in adopt those so definitely back to the board for addressing those that said the twin ability finding did also factor into the torture claim analysis so i think that that would also have to get sent back to see if that would change the immigration judge which is the only available for relief under under the convention the capture all the only relief you can get is ca claim relief or remove are under what you can get withholding removal and then withholding under the torture convention she can't get asylum because you are with the old right holding only proceedings but withholding is separate from the torture relief so as withholding is kind of a lesser form of asylum and there's also the torture or relief but what she would i mean if she was found to be credible that would go back to the board to address either way on the credibility if you were to look to me like the does list the two that at the base of the credibility finding out what those were what ability determination the immigration judge at the board found to be sufficient whether how long do you know people when people are in custody like this like mr petitioner here how often do they get bond hearings is like as in like a continual i mean do they just they just remain in custody until they're dead i don't know i'm not sure can they file a petition for a bond or something they can if they are if the immigration proceedings they cannot file for a bond hearing with the board i don't believe that was done in this case i don't see anything in the record as far as that but once the case gets this level i'm not sure what the procedures are if they have to go to d h as if that's a b s petition of what it is but i'm not sure  the court you had as to the injuries of of the petitioner at the time her teeth were allegedly knocked out and as to the injury to her son the son i believe the still in guatemala and there was a medical report that was not contemporaneous with the injuries suffered but was later submitted by a doctor melanie lane i believe it was that did include the analysis of what the petitioners injuries looked like us to think how long can someone stay in this type of detention under u s law could be life imprisonment i mean i think that once the case itself is over so if it goes back before the immigration judge in the bar i believe she would get another opportunity for a bond hearing at that point if the court were to deny the petition for review and then she would remove at that point in time that would not be i don't believe it would be though she hasn't been removed to this thing just because the proceedings are ongoing and you know we have some cases where people would be removed a few issues to address the first just for the bond issue i want to clarify mr t s was granted bond at fifteen thousand dollars she could not pay it she couldn't pay it furthermore this court does have a precedent indicating that there should be a review every six months of the bond condition we have not had the resources to pursue that i have contacted the officials regarding this issue and they  officials their detention center officials excuse me they've indicated that they only look at facial errors so in other words that it's a she was supposed to be here for x time and that we've gone beyond that that's all they look at they don't go beyond that we just have the resources to pursue that i think there's an opinion of judge wardlaw that i joined that said they should get a bond hearing every six months they want of that's pending at the u s supreme court yes obviously she's fifteen thousand is a lot of money right absolutely so too unless there's any issues of questions on the bond i just wanted to touch on a few other points in terms of so in terms of the credibility piece the b i focused on two discrete events the b a did not address the domestic violence the documented evidence the lack of the testimony those cannot undercut the fact that we have a concern here that she did suffer physical abuse and the b a could theoretically discredit her on those events but still find it credible as to the fundamental portion of her claim moreover that it is that error tainted the b i's ability to review those events because they didn't look at those events and her testimony about them from the perspective of someone who has been severely abused on a regular basis and as this court recognized in shrestha versus gonzalez someone who has suffered that kind of abuse you will expect them to have inconsistency as to confuse events to mix and match facts about those events and i think that's what we're seeing here the other piece to consider it a bit of difference isn't there quite frankly between saying a stranger did this to me and then later saying the stranger was hired by my or those the person that hurt me was my ex boyfriend or was hired by my ex boyfriend i think that this phenomenon that i'm talking about can be combined with other factors such as translational issues and her serious fear of mr davis all these events she's talking about at some point in the record it's revealed he was involved so i think that's another factor as she's talking about things and not wanting to mention him and then he sort of comes out from time to time don't think that that is live here furthermore mr t s mentioned in numerous occasions that she has gone to the police and they have done nothing they have refused and blamed her so that that shows the acquiescence that is necessary there's more than enough here especially in comparison to on the things that she would be appealing as she was required to be instructed and she did raise her fear that she had this serious fear which triggered the b a s review and there are questions about exhaustion thank your honour's i would just close by saying that