of ninety nine or not december of ninety one excuse me there's about eight or nine times he goes back and forth between the united states and either russia or has extended is that correct yes right so how does it's kind of intuitive that that there is a significant issue of his want to continue going back and forth back and forth many times well no your honor again first of all most of the there was only one return trip because it's that after that for the purpose of selling what remained of trying to obtain russian citizenship he moved to russia in two thousand he testified in the proceeding that he had no contact with any gang members on behalf of the of the corrupt officials or any indication in russia that he was that he would have any problem with them as of december two thousand and two after that encounter he only left and returned once there was a final threat in may two thousand three of every serious threat that he would be killed and then he never returned at all and there in that time of course he had no knowledge that they were hatching this entire a contract murder on him which events transpired long after he was gone and ironically all these events start only after the because uk officials and the officials who were working with him in the right and then in the russian government discovered knowing that the government had the ability to reach across the ocean to try and find him because first of all as i mentioned earlier they never did anything to try and find him for two and a half years and rush but when he went back these number of times how many times of does what does he fear going back to russia as opposed to a cosmic stand now well he fears he fears first of all that he would be persecuted on account of his nationality as jewish to prosecute the people who were supposedly actually carried out the contract right this is a young alive who was no governmental connections whatsoever and somehow seems to have this incredible amount of influence that he can get russian police across the border without any improper conviction or political conviction or whatever it was revealed however the political nature of the prosecution could not have been brought up in the federal trial the issue in the federal trial at least for purposes of the charging document did you answer the question incorrectly on the i forty five yes and he agrees yes i answer the question correctly on the i forty five but it wasn't it wasn't made clear to him that he had the opportunity to challenge and and in the scope of the credible is something we're compelled to reverse based on the record for us right because as i pointed out in my brief a lot of the alleged inconsistency between the application within the testimony don't exist they say for example he said he only suffered bruises but he said i was being badly very clearly if the point is just one of those and that he said he was beaten so badly that he thought he had a possible fractured skull and there's no were that showed that there was at some point in time this person had been abused in a way that sounds like he had some from the descriptions some primitive injures or your honor again he was in detention from day one and to the present day that he's in federal custody it's extremely difficult to get a doctor like when i have a client on the outside to go to physicians committee for human rights or someone else it's extremely difficult to get someone in detention into a detention facility for an examination what they're not file a motion or petition to have your doctor go in and examine the client i'm not knowledgeable of that so i won't i just know that it wasn't done and i know that i've had difficulty in that particular facility in getting anyone in to examine anybody at th he said why with regard to why would you need my father's letter and not the not he showed them the scar on his nose in the hearing this is where it is he just couldn't prove it that the origin of it because he's not a medical x when the very hard to do and it's an expedited proceeding and he did not have the he did not have any counsel until april two thousand and ten and the hearing was only a few months of a letter i mean a letter from the father wouldn't have been that overseas and the father stated in his letter and one of his later letters that he was ready to testify but no one called him because it was a very long hearing and it went to the end of the day and perhaps that's where the i chip perhaps a way that's why it wasn't presented but number of trips and made a decision based on that but more importantly he sent his whole family to the night it's in one thousand nine hundred five they never came back he thought that he and if you read a cessna he thought that he could work it out by working with groups like  and so on to counteract the corrupt officials and other groups and those other groups basically just took his money and didn't do anything with it you know unfortunately that appears to be a way of life for a minority businessman in causes that we would be a here but this is what he had to do in order to keep his business card and the trips were necessary to pursue his business and him and you know he had everything there it didn't makes it would be extremely difficult for him to have lost at that time before his arrest he had all these businesses and he was hoping to cut it you know to pacify the government officials who want to take over the businesses and works out some arrangement where they would stop bothering it really wasn't until this arrest this unjustified arrest occurred that he realized that there's no way of pacifying anymore i need to get out and i need to get russian citizenship so if he's removed through refresh what we talked about him minutes eight months in a russian prison before he was finally extradite is a good chance that mystical tough to be physically eliminate in a russian prison where conditions are admittedly life threatening before he ever gets the cause extensive just because there's a theoretical agreement doesn't mean he's ever reason that she finds it was credibility is because he had lied before but what he did by pleading guilty was he actually told the truth that he had lied when he first came here so in effect she's she's double dipping she say because he told the truth about that he once upon a relied primarily on that was the first thing a patient really wanted it is the first thing she mentions and i think she said it's the groundwork she says that the provision of false information order to receive an immigration benefit discredits his current testimony and causes it to be viewed koncz cautiously that also it's important to remember the chronology of these events he filed his adjustment application in january of two thousand and four and then many years later took many years for the  the interview to take place and during this time department of homeland security was communicating and trying to ascertain whether or not meek will limited had actually had a counterpart in  through that investigation that they ascertain from the cosmic government that it was it was a fraudulent company that the documents that had been submitted to create maker were fraudulent and the cause a government also reported a second time whether or not everything he stated in his i phone forty five application was cracked and he said it was it was at that time that he was charged with his misrepresentation at which well originally on direct examination judge and bro he had all kinds of excuses for why he pled guilty and he did not take ownership of his plea he said that he he had been told that his there his family was going to be deported he said that he didn't think it was a legal arrest and then on cross examination he with those areas were pursued and he was asked did you raise this issue that you did not believe you were arrested in kazakhstan was illegal arrested you raise that with the judge no i didn't raise that with the judge and he was eventually forced to admit i pled guilty because i was guilty and i also would like to comment that this argument from petitioners counsel that this is some sort of you know there's some sort of a technical violation when you say  a hearing that you play guilty because you're guilty he pled guilty to knowingly and intentionally providing fraudulent information on is just an application and i think the immigration judge although it was not are so basis for fi detained in april of night in of ember one thousand nine hundred eight and he doesn't get released until april of one nine hundred ninety nine he was told by these individuals while he was in prison allegedly that they'll find him anywhere they will find him on the mood killings on you we can do that because he claims the new girlie have told him it's our it we were the ones who tell who gets in and who gets out as a present so the notion that he had a new and unique reason to seek asylum in the united states because the interpol warrant does just not stand up against the facts he was told in prison let me get quickly back to the trips back and forth he waited eight months after he was released from the cause of prison in april of one nine hundred ninety nine leaving come to the united states he stayed one month and he returned he returned and despite threats and of harm and promises of ongoing punishment if he did not to see to their demands he claimed you want to have to be and but that doesn't make any sense because his father claims that that after he got out of prison he had nothing he was laid there he had nothing but the shirt on his back he testified on direct examination that after he was released from prison in april of one nine hundred ninety nine he had nothing he had no property the banks had sold everything he own and yet all the sudden he's got to go back and sell things he starts a new business in kazakhstan after he was released from prison i open in december of he was asked about this trip cross examination why did you return back to russia in december of two thousand tips and he said i returned to russia because i did not know yet no my life was in danger then he was confronted with the fact that he testified on direct examination that the day before he left in december of two thousand and two that he was threatened by colonel collar cobb who promised that they would find him and he later admitted on cross that in fact in december of two thousand to his life was in danger as a matter of fact during that confrontation in december of two thousand and two when he testified i left the next day he said he was confronted colonel col gave him the name and the phone number and address of his family and united states said we can find anywhere and yet still he returned to russia after that confrontation so that is very very telling and then again there is the an inconsistency with regard to hi that the board actually cited abdulai in its first decision on the merits and with respect to abbeville i applying with regard to the board's decision on the motion to reopen it actually referenced eight u s c eleven fifty eight is this is the sustaining burden section of the statute and it's said that you know that that that that that is a new provision found in the real id act and i think if you go back to originally they we all agree it was it was a misstatement regarding have the life well for example i mean there is there was a tremendous amount of notice for example with regard to the documents that he was requested to supply and he was conceivable corroborative evidence he was asked for a lease with with mr celeb he was asked for police reports to back up his problems with his gangs in the early years he was asked for medical records he was asked for the letter from his father he was asked for a letter from his attorney and the judge specifically said i mean i'm sorry he has asked for a letter from his attorney and both have said i didn't think that was necessary he was asked for bank documents to establish the loan that the cousin government apparently set up for him so you know again you know as and as as this court has said you know this isn't a situation where someone is found credible as is the point that judge cohen is going to respond credible and that he presented property of evidence but somehow the immigration judge wanted more he presented no corroboration of his injuries of his mistreatment of really anything that was critical to his claim   there's a significant test to be made and it doesn't look as if you're even close to it well you're on again the issue of the issue of the trips i want to go back to again this is a man who had millions of dollars invested in a shop and we're talking about just some of but the trips the factories dating cars extend for eight months before he left in the summer of eighty nine doesn't help him  to say about whether there should be any kind of report or granting of a petition review because you're asking about something that happened sixteen years before the hearing he didn't say that it was a deep stab wound and he went to the hospital when was that he met that burden by showing that there's a likelihood of future torture in russia conditions a life threatening he was already threatened there you have a thirty three single spaced page i j b it's probably the most comprehensive one i've ever read  that goes through everything line by line but as you pointed out it's cast over the shadow of the federal conviction making the assumption that he must be lying about everything else and then we go through point by point and inherent in credibility though isn't it in a witness takes the stand in a jury trial them the witness testifies to ten things and the jury doesn't believe the witness on this on the number one most important thing sometimes the jury assumes or determines that all of the other nine are also lies and that they could be completely wrong but is that not the function of the fact finder is not the function of the fact find was independently judged based on the testimony in the documents presented as to whether he has a past persecution a well founded fear of persecution and here she didn't do that she has everything based on the conviction and certainly at least when you say he's demonstrated  the rabbit in the hat because it's only demonstrated if all those things are true and she's finding that they're not true and she can't know one way or the other she wasn't there she can only look at the witness list of the witness draw inferences