a good morning your honor and before i proceed it is my intention to reserve the balance of my time for rebuttal and in terms of assisting the court with pronouncing my client's name it's abraham  regarding his prior travel to japan because mr ted plays integrity is important this false impression needs to be rectified like his namesake of the patriarch abraham in fear for their respective lives the abraham of all the misjudged the king who would not have killed abraham in order to take sarah as the king's wife we know this because the king did not harm abraham a part of learning the truth he harm him or him because he had not been truthful while the king was displeased that the lie would have led him to make a serious mistake about sarah the king understood that to save a life was tantamount saving the whole world the king knew that a dead patriarch is of no use to his old family so why did my client modern day abraham lie about japan he mistakenly thought that if he told the immigration judge about japan she would deport him there and in turn the japanese government would alternately deport him to his homeland ethiopia where he would then be murdered and i say to the administrative record at page nine o four submit that he lied to save a life is a more not immoral evil and really i believe that the forensic expert should not have been part of should not have been allowed to testify in the reasons for that are set forth at nauseum in my brief administrator was she talking about most importantly there was no foundation that only laser jet printers were used and that no jet printers were used contemporaneously in the us here we're familiar with the courts changing forms all the time from year to year this does not mean that the prior form is no longer genuine and on the other hand i'd like to balance what i just said against abraham's wife scalia's detailed testimony as to her having been served with the warrant on december seventh two thousand and five and abraham's detailed testimony regarding his promptly fleeing from good morning your honour's may please the court turning seventy two f leo on behalf of the attorney general of the united states it is clear from the record that the evidence does not compel a conclusion contrary to that of the agency that petition or the mail petition this particular case testified adversely incredibly in front of the immigration judge in the agency and not only that but relied on what is a purported lee false arrest warrant which really is the crux of petitioners asylum claim before the agency one of the important things to recognize here is this is a situation in which petitioner testified vehemently that he resided continuously the period from one nine hundred ninety eight to two thousand and five and that when confronted specifically with regard to whether or not he traveled to japan whether or not he applied for a visa in japan whether or not he worked in japan that he denied that and only when confronting confronted with uncontroverted evidence that he was in fact pain for specific periods of time the petitioner then indicate that he was in japan and then he limited he further expounded upon his in consistencies before the agency when he indicated that he was only in japan from appearance of nine hundred ninety eight in one thousand nine and from october two thousand and one to october two thousand and four when it was subsequently determined that based upon the evidence provided to provided by the government before the agency in this particular case that his wife indicated very clearly  application in japan that he was living in residing in two thousand and five so the in essence the adverse credibility nature of the inconsistency is before the agency simply continued to pile up on behalf of the  titian or and this is a situation in which is this is a post real id case we have a situation in which this asylum application was filed in two thousand and six after an act you know the real idea and as a result of that the immigration judge has the ability in the broad ability of there i say with regard to making a determination based upon the totality of the circumstances that it need not ease in consistencies need not go to the heart of the claim with regard to with regard to three real id cases but since this is a post real id case we have a totality of the circumstances with regard to incredulous testimony before the immigration judge and i want to add also that it's also important to recognize that petitioner not only lied with regard to being in shipping and omitting that he applied for a tourist visa into or meeting where there was also the case with regard to he was challenged with respect to whether or decision by the immigration judge the immigration a determination that for purposes of asylum with regard to political opinion or ethnicity based upon the adverse credibility nature of your  testimony i e welcome the fraudulent arrest warrant and purports perpetrating that testimony upon the court that i'm going to deny saying with regard to that withholding he made a determination there was a clear probability right they say that it's higher more likely than not a clear probability with regard to female genital mutilation because this court has consistently held in mohammed versus the dollars and the like that that is continuing persecution what the regs do under eighty a far twelve o eight point six n it indicates that if you're in asylum determination was originally denied as in you subsequently grant withholding that you are bound as the agency to go back and reconsider that forth in the regulation made the determination that in light of what is essence a fraud perpetrated upon the immigration court that your asylum application is going to be denied as a matter of discretion so i think what the immigration judge did here and this is a very withholding you should ever go get asylum however the regulations actually provide for the situation i've actually accounted for it after notice and comment period obviously and if said in the event withholding is granted an asylum was denied us the agency have to go back and reassess that asylum determination and surprisingly i will say that the immigration judge did a fantastic job actually fighting through the regulation and looking in making that determination here are the adverse factors the ever factors here are even when confronted with conflicting and inconsistent testimony before this order before this court meaning me the immigration court she the female petitioner can testimony with regard to the female genital mutilation i will grant you withholding so she was granted withholding as a result of that evidence but under the regular out of the regulation within the power of the agency the agency was id's thing that in the facts that have been submitted before this court so abuse of discretion manifestly contrary to law with regard to that discretionary denial that was with the men so your argument basically is that it is not an abuse of discretion for the  denied asylum wife on the ground the wife participated in the presentation of evidence when the consequence of granting asylum would then be to allow or at least force consideration  this particular situation so i would i would i would i would submit to this court that again those do we compel a contrary conclusion does substantial evidence with respect to the adverse credibility determination support that i was credibility finding for on behalf of the male petitioner i say unequivocally and then if we move secondarily if we move to the ivies decision to decide to deny asylum on the basis of discretion for all the factors that we discussed based upon that housekeeping housekeeping issues on the issue of my client's location in july two thousand and five all one has to do is look at the government's exhibits it eleven through fourteen to see that when the wife applied for a visitor visa to the u s in two thousand and two she set forth that the location of her husband was in japan she was denied in two thousand and three four and five and you look at the two thousand and five application and there's no indication of that whatsoever so i'm going to humbly submit that that's either a error clerical error on the part of them it s or simply a red herring the wife did not participate in any miss testimony well except for and we've talked about this before depending on how one characterizes the warrant again and i stand on my prior arguments on that on the passport issue of abraham he had renewed it expiration september of two thousand and we submitted that passport the original in a copy as it tapped the other exhibits there after he did leave ethiopia for kenya by ground transportation and his testimony in kenya somebody had doctorate his expired passport so that he could then travel to japan so there was no inconsistency there in terms of the real id act i agree with that assessment credibility is important but it's also important not to lose sight of the fact that that rose out of the horrific events of nine eleven and its main purpose is to protect us from allowing terrorists into our country  nobody here in good conscience would submit that my clients are terrorists now on the important issue of my client a scalia in the children's independent application for asylum initially based on ethnicity and imputed political opinion as well well before she met her husband my client was in jail in the mid eighty's because of political opinion but moreover the court properly  permanent condition the judge did not hide her reasoning whatsoever as to only grant scalia the higher standard of proof that withholding requires and not the lower standard asylum to which she wasn't titled one just has to take a look at page twenty of her order did it to lie thirteen and see that the court's animists right or wrong was directed toward the husband but we respectfully submit that it's not correct for the judge to deny the wife her asylum where she endured such extreme persecution  wrong i believe that they were somehow safe and secure here and again we may be putting the cart before the horse the judge assumes that if you grant the wife asylum she's going to file the right derivative petitions for the husband in the children she may but at that point the service is not precluded from then examining that and whether and whether or not the service wants to grant that based on what