that your honor this case is about due process we have multiple due process issues raised but i think there's really two i'd like to focus on because i think they're very connecting one it's the denial of the motion to continue i think this case could be decided on that issue alone but the fact is our office was precluded from getting very substantial and central evidence in this case had we had more time there was no continuance ever given to the respondent as the b i a iranian slee concluded otherwise and so we would have loved to gather more evidence that went directly to the point of what the cuban government does to retiring deportees specifically those who claim to sign him from the united states and so when you look at the fact we were precluded from getting evidence to really support this claim was was not answered by respondent the opening grief gets into that but i think that when you look at if they are one hundred and forty six where the judge essentially provides his understanding of the case that that's where we believe there was prejudgment made with all due respect the immigration judge it appeared that he cut off questioning on this central question because he had already decided the case doesn't make a difference i think each case is a little different when you're looking at what is the circuit what is the context of the motion to continue the latest memorandum in terms of what is good cause for continuance it was a d o j i j memo on continuances where above all due process should be respected and that would be a basis for a continuance so i think that might be the highest or strongest reason for a continuance in other cases it is more of a matter of discretion in this case we believe the i j a did both people violated due process and abused discretion by denying t hearing by himself where he smit is i five it nine there was a huge gap from the st and nd hearing because venue of the core it change which is another i believe very serious you process issue in this case there was never a change of venue made from the department of homeland security to move the case from illinois to the detention center which is overseen by the tucson immigration court and so because of this three to four month the leg between the st and a nine and then the rd hearing was the final trial there was no continuance granted whatsoever in the case and the b i it clearly error in saying that the i g gave several continuances and so i think for this particular case it's both a due process issue because the petition was prevented from getting evidence and it's a discretionary just clear error issue because the judge denied a continuance when there was never one provided and this particular judge we have many cases with he usually gives a nd master after the submission of an asylum application to receive evidence so he did not do that in this case and we were just retained shortly before the case yes we knew of the individual hearing but we also knew that there was no continuance ever granted and so we reasonably foresaw that we would be able to get a continuance we certainly work with the clients to get evidence but we were unable to do so and specifically on that point of what the cuban government does to returning deportees on i'd like to address a couple of other issues and i want to follow up with a question  don't think he viewed the evanescent record but to that that's exactly the prejudice that the petitioner faced was we were unable as his attorneys to have sufficient time to collect the evidence that went straight to the heart of his claim which is what does the cuban government do to returning deportees from the united states had we had more time we would've sought out more corroborative affidavit statements to help us just prove our point and so that's where we do believe that the respondent was greatly prejudiced by the fact we simply didn't have time to get the evidence which then the judge says he's not credible because there is no we didn't have the evidence that he denied the continuance which we would have been able to get the evidence with that said there was still one document in the record which i believe the judge either underweight or did not weigh at all with his statement that there was no corroboration on our sixty three does one does anything one way or the other with respect to the address credibility finding because you're going to risk credibility finding here what you did the continued lack of continuing to do that had some effect on the evidence presented the went to adverse credibility well i do believe the respondent was credible and i get that but i'm asking you what evidence could you have discovered or might you have discovered the would have helped you get out from under the address credibility finding which i think may be supported on the court record well your honor i do believe the respondent was able to dispute some of the understanding's from the border interview he was found credible by the asylum officer  but the judge's point on that there was no corroboration and that really just goes hand in hand with the real idea and so if we were able to produce more evidence that went to the point of what the cuban government does to returning deportees they torture them if we had more evidence than the judge would not be able to say there wasn't corroboration and so and that's what i mean that's that's the point of my question ability doesn't really go to what he says the government will or will not do the editor's credibility goes to the story he told about what happened so you may or may not have been able to predict accurately what the commute given government was going to do but that's not a credibility question i mean understands important your case but this is really going to credibility my understanding is the way the real id work real idea act works is it's there's there's clearly testimony which is evidence and then you have the physical evidence to support that testimony and so in this case because we don't we really only had testimony yes there was one letter from the wife it was primarily testimonial evidence and so if we had more physical evidence i think the just that question is really kind of balancing both physical and testimonial evidence and so if we had more physical evidence which we could not get because the continuance was denied we would have been able to provide that and i think that would have countered any sort of concern in terms of just the sole testimonial evidence or on it ok thank you no for the question of them at this time let's hear from the government and you start to reserve some time we'll make sure you get to say something on  are so you can hear neither of us now i hear you now young i heard what you just said but i didn't hear what you said let let's let's go back to judge miller's question then and then go from there can you hear me now credibility finding was the inconsistency between what he is reported to have said in the border interview and what he later so that the hearing whatever the testimony of the ira i don't know whether you can hear me but i cannot investor time will solve the problem not to worry about that so let's try the judge miller's question again so he says he wanted to get the testimony of the official who conducted the porter interview would that be relevant to his credibility that question can you hear me on that question has to start he says well yes i said i was going to work but that was not in response to a question as to why you're coming it was in response to a question what will you do if you are here also last part of your statement the question he says was not why are you coming to the united states the question was rather what will you do in the united states and he said he's going to work that's different from saying that's why he came well you are now based on the record and the trial of the of the circumstances the agencies determined that he was facing that came to the united states to work said he said yes when he was asked whether he told the also said we're here to work in fact correct he said yes and then later on he said i was asked why i was here and i said to request a sign of them your honor firstly i'd like to state that while we did argue past persecution in this case we believe that the threats the petitioner received does rise to the level of persecution we  do believe there's a much stronger argument for the future infliction of persecution and torture going specifically to the point of what the cuban government does to returning  s as far as the petitioner having a work visa to mexico and returning to cuba while he had the work visa he was able to explain with his testimony why there was such a substantial difference  opening brief addresses that page seven and that's a are one of seven dishes stated that once you're here once you've requested asylum in the united states the cuban government were to find out they label you as a traitor and you get accused of being a traitor and so we do believe that the petitioner's fear of being tortured in cuba is supported by objective bully reasonable country condition reports  it would almost be certain that he would be identified when he were he was returned as a deportee and jailed that's what the cuban government does to returning deportees from the united states and  how conditions in human prisons are going to torture and also just the likelihood of being tortured by a cuban government official lastly your honour's i like to know that we filed a motion  appellate proceedings in this case only last week because it only recently became clear to us that the petitioner is now eligible to adjust status based on being released from ice detention and to be deported is just fundamentally unfair thank you help me understand the basis on which you would apply for adjustment of status and the basis upon which is wife did get adjustment that's under the cuban adjustment act and so in the motion to stay we've identified all the elements of the cuban adjustment act the most important difference between the petitioner and his wife was the  paroled at the border when the couple entered the country and the petitioner was just recently paroled after a year and a half or two years in detention and why oh why why are you only now asking for adjustment of stat who i think has now pronounced a national decision that really shows you citing the u s supreme court that release on parole there is only one ability for the government to release someone when they're arriving alien and that's five day parole which entitles one to adjustment of status but only after the person is released so the petition was only eligible for that before while detained ok it may be that we want some supplemental briefing on this question before we decide this to him or some of the government is so far i think not not not responded that correct the government's not respond