native and citizen of mexico he was placed in withholding only hearings before the immigration judge and who denied the withholding in cat on adverse primarily an adverse credibility grounds and  and for those reasons tonight the cat the board agreed with the judge and found no legal or clear factual error in the i g s decisions relating to cat the main reasons for the adverse credibility findings were  alleged in consistencies between the i five eighty nine written application and the testimony and the main inconsistency he's  for focused on the issue of the what happened to the petitioners toes while he was in captivity the issue of the crippled man and the ransom and the the judge in the board did not nuanced way would be looking at this not so much as one of inconsistency and omissions but rather that during the testimony that there was a fleshing out in specific details of what had been referred to in general in the i five eighty nine and so in that sense i think that a case discussed by the respondent zammit off as well as another case which  are you argue that memory loss or suppression there's a reaction to trauma and that explains perhaps the inconsistency is or the omissions and i correct there yes and did you raise that exhaustion of administrative remedies have been resolved so that we didn't have a chance to redress the memory loss or him yet they will not specifically that but it did talk about in general the that it was not accepting the reasons given by the petitioner so i think that generally that would be you know included i mean he was in the generous umbrella well yeah it is but i thought i think that i think that the language allows your question but i think that i i'm not i'm so my argument is that they're not discrepancies and that well these additions are well not even additions and i'm putting this in the in the in really in the framework that's fair if you don't want to call him and these further descriptions are they not significant and are they not significant enough to support the determination of the i if one is taking a look from the point of view of inconsistency if and defined as contradiction however you want it clear however i wanted to find it a yes  yes in that sense they're significant but what i'm saying is is that that what we have here is a fleshing out of something that was referred to in initial declaration discusses in very great detail the universe of the of what had happened to the would have been perpetrated against the the petitioner and then in  specificity and then in the second declaration or in testimony he adds all these other things so that's really quite different here and he was referring to things he was talking about things that had not been referred to in the i five eighty nine and so i case really just very if it really went into great details greater details and you know than just you know from the general statement of mistreatment and threat so his failure to mention and his application that one of his tolls was severed by bulk cutters when he was in custody and describing what happened to him as being being been being beaten severely for approximately three weeks your position is that that's just additional detail that's not significant enough or inconsistent it's not inconsistent could you help me out by telling me whether this case the timing of it puts it under the real i d act or not it is it's post real id to re ideas from two thousand and five in this case he was put into proceedings i think in two thousand and fourteen around that time the place is clearly so you're so on the putting aside the cat on the on with the whole thing you're under the real i d act which doesn't require any inconsistency is to go to the heart of the matter right correct and under the stress the opinion that i recall having something to do with years ago we said you have to look at the total circumstance correct yes ressa yes and so i guess my question is wouldn't like the guy not saying his toward in cut off initially part of the total circumstance yes but if this is the fleshing out in specifics during testimony of what had been generally referred to in the written statement then the i five eighty nine so i mean that trivial or whether it's trivial that's one of the words that's been used and so would you say this was trivial i mean revealing that these were no these were these were not trivial but when i'm so again i'm  to i know i'm sounding like a broken record here but i'm says it depends on the on the glasses and the spectacles that you're looking at this through and so anyway i am way beyond whatever i reserve for thank you so  may have plays the court my name is craig nor and i'm here on behalf of the attorney general so the court should deny this petition for review because substantial evidence supports agers and agencies finding that mr but i was not a credible witness and he has not pointed to any evidence in the record that would compel a result adjudicator to rule otherwise their migration judge bases adverse credibility determination the discrepancies between the testimony and the application and particularly significant one is the fact that he testified that one of his captors cut off a toe and maimed another toe but these were not mentioned at all is that really a discrepancy i mean let's look at what he said rice application and he said he was kidnapped by into wanted by locals and sold to mexican tar telling drug smugglers smugglers i was beaten severely for approximately three weeks because i refused to cooperate are engaged in their drug smuggling operations when you look at what his testimony is says the officers pulled him over and took him to prison for two and a half weeks he was forced to fear for those charges he was threatened  the officers threaten to kill him if his wife did not pay ransom the officers cut one of my toes and split the other in half with the bolt cutter a cripple men took care of me my wife paid the ransom and i was released i did not get medical treatment  i think i'm quickly summarizing what he said but why isn't that just an elaboration i mean it's not inconsistent is it it is not the characterization i mean these absences dramatically new allegation that he that he thus set forth for the first time in his testimony on direct testimony and it was certainly reasonable for the immigration judge to view this as an embellishment and attempt to enhance his claim in that in his application i'm looking and it says have you or your family or close friends or colleagues ever experience harm or mistreatment or threats in the past by anyone and it's as if yes explain in detail and then gives a little boxes just a little box right here i don't know if that box expands or if they have to write it in the little box and in it he said he says what i just said i was beaten and they said quite what happened when the harm by mistreatment or threats occurred who caused the harm or mistreatment or threats and why do you believe the harm or mistreatment mistreatment and threats occurred and so that sufficient based on what's in this application is it not possible to elaborate further at testimony it is possible to elaborate further but this the application asks asks for details it at the very top it informs the applicant under the part b that that you may attach additional sheets further explains that you must provide a detailed and specific account of all the events speaks english has been in this country for a long time he prepared he testified that he prepared this application with the help of his attorney this is a the addition of the toe being severed from his foot that part of his claim  should have been in this application it's of it increases his the claimed his claim of suffering in the past persecution element of a withholding of removal claim is truly important establish past persecution that creates a rebuttable presumption that he has a a likelihood of future persecution and would help them establish that claim and he a telling lee didn't never mention this before hand whether it be in substantial oversight that in and of itself would have been enough to find mr but not credible as this court seven assure us the holder case although inconsistency is no longer need to go to the heart of the claim significance if any under our president of the fact that he testifies that is so was cut off but i thought also that he did not get any medical treatment think the medical treatment part it goes to a surrounding circumstance i guided the immigration judges finding but the fact is when he he claims so this the toe that got allegedly cut off during his captivity during the kidnapping occurred within two or three weeks of him re entering the united states and he's testified that upon legal or entering the country could he cut his hand and he went to  either a hospital or clinic and got stitches on his hand but he did not he he he states that he did not ask that doctor to look at his toe despite the fact that it was cut off and that he was treating it very rud lee with bandages for the last three weeks and that was an impossibility finding that the immigration judge considered in the totality of the circumstances and that's really the key is to look at the totality here we have george not just about t  the mexico country condition report record reflects that the i j a failed to consider that report which i trust you'll agree was admitted without objection during the hearing my career yes it was admitted without did not point to anything in that report any independent objective evidence that he would more likely than not be tortured and that is really how this court's precedent to the i j a comment anywhere about that report yes he did it to the board and the board corrected it but he had to point to something that would change the outcome of this case all he has incredible claim about this kidnapping he needed the dust and point to and that's what the case law says to independent objective evidence that he would more likely than not be tortured one of the main cases that come out this case where this court said that the board immigration judge overly relied on the average credibility to nation but they're the country report showed that a certain ethnic group in sri lanka the males there was widespread torture of them there is nothing here we have a general evidence of abuse claims of abuse by law enforcement in mexico but nothing to discretion here if the ninth circuit says you have to do something more than what was done here so give me your best case as was asked ok in garcia v holder seven forty nine f thirty seven eighty five this is a real id cut case from two thousand and fourteen there they made the same argument and the board but this court found that unless there is clear indication that the i j a and the court did not consider the documentary evidence general language that the agency considered all the evidence of the record as sufficient the board's language that there was no evidence in the record that they are the ones that were tortured or that she faces a clear probability of torture was sufficient and so that is similar here that was a credibility claim plus you know the kid is he has the burden of when he's found not credible to point to independent objective evidence and he did not do so either before the immigration ransom again that was part of the process that was generally referred to with the kidnapping being and being kept so that's just again part of the general reference number to the judge with regard to that administrative record page twenty five saying that officials don't protect mexican says there's corruption they don't protect citizens there's violations and he mentioned on a r twenty six of the judge  even discuss or consider the country reports the judge just referred to it on the first page of his world decision thank you very much yes ok thank you thank you thank you both for your arguments here today