mrs watchin that is her mandarin name her korean name because she is chinese citizen of korean descent is the name that's listed on the actual case kim and this is an immigration matter and the issues before the court are whether the board erred in upholding the immigration judge is finding that the petitioner did not meet her burden  a even though she was found not credible by the i j a that the i a e a deemed her credible and but said ok but you didn't you need to corroborate and you didn't so we have to look to what did she have notice of that did she because there was a hearing and during the hearing there were a number at some point it came i don't know if you were the lawyer or not it came as a surprise that there was a no but then they went on and then there were questions that under cross examination that could not be answered and about well what do you have if you have anything that can show that you have this beauty salon what do you have about where you were in the hospital you know what can you show about you know can you show us you know asking for other documents and then after your client not being able to provide any of those the court said ok i'll give you a continu and then when your client came back the sister came and then i kind of a good news bad news thing with the sister because she really didn't answer a lot of those questions but then she also mentioned that your client had been arrested for prostitution i guess after the initial asylum application and pled to a lesser charge of later arraigned with the intent of prostitution right it was actually after the testimony had been taken the majority of the testimony it was a at the time that the second the remained had already taken make sure you said she didn't have any crimes then i guess but then somehow in the the second time when but the sister then said oh yeah she's been arrested she was arrested back in china then she got arrested when she tried to come and and she got arrested when she was a massage work in a massage parlor right it was questions that she couldn't answer which pretty much went to the heart of what she was trying to claim why why wasn't she on notice that you better bring some corroboration and if you can get it if i may just point out i am actually the fourth  corroborating evidence that was sent by her mother she had a number of identity documents she had her copy of her a pager a passport she had her national identity card she had a birth certificate she had a driver's license from china and we also have the overall credible testimony of the response of the petitioner and the sisters testimony actually also did the harm that she suffered what mr claim has persecution the claim of past persecution is that hospital as well as a result of well as a result of her asked and beaten against the the wall she also was subjected to deprivation of food and water she also was subjected to bright lights being signed in her face she was actually just one point rendered unconscious and it was at that point wanted to just wanted some proof that the hospitalization because she claimed she was in the hospital said can you get me something and your client story was that somehow our cousin came in and said you better get out she climbed out the window even and so the judge was just hoping to see whether she'd even been in the hospital well because of the nature of the circumstances of the crime that she was being accused of when she was rendered unconscious she found herself in the hospital her cousin was actually a medical doctor at the facility and the cousin was able to make arrangements for her to escape from the bathroom window and i understand your argument first if i don't know that you've conceded that there might have been some notice that she needed corroboration but that being said you are saying that she presented some corroboration ok and so after that when we're looking at it what is is the standard of review that it has to compile the result that you're asking for what standard of review do you have to overcome i do believe that under these particular circumstances i'm not saying that across the board that under these circumstances with the evidence that she presented that corroborates some portions of her claim sad then let's look at i don't think we can look at it to novo and just decide it like it's never been decided isn't the standard that it's got to compel the result that circumstances so you say we get to reweigh it we look at it to know we weigh it like no one ever has never seen it before and we should decide that you know that's i'm trying to focus you on the standard of review here i believe that the i j did not give appropriate weight to ok but the standard of review i think is the record has to compel the conclusion that requested corroborative evidence was not reasonably available right i would agree ok and it has to compel the conclusion that your client sufficiently corroborated her claim so that's the lens we'd like go yes and i believe that the petitioner has satisfied that burden because she did obtain the documents from her mother that were essentially neutral but didn't relate to the  the nature of the claim of having helped north korean refugee that would not have put the mother in any kind of peril in obtaining those documents or being in possession of those documents if she had gone to the hospital or to the police station to try and obtain corroborating documents concerning the claim against her for having helped north korean refugees think that may have resulted in some harm to family members to the mother or other relatives that might have tried to position at the point that it was put over and then i think it was put over fourteen months to come back so i j did not say specifically ok next time this is a list of what i want you to bring back the i j a you know we have to sort of surmise that she was on notice of that and i think at the time the briefs are written and ran would been controlling and then lew came out after and somewhat i think less and the standard of how explicit you have to be how can we be sure that she was on  notice that what she had to do well your honor i believe at the beginning of her hearings the immigration judge did tell her to provide documents to support her claim  d later on during her testimony she was asked about various documents like well do you have proof of hospitalization and you have proof of being arrested during cross examination so on a related point let me  because i think this is the heart of what's most difficult about the the record in this particular case the statute talks about the trier of fact being the one to make the credibility germination and suggest that the i j a not the government on cross or other things that might have come out during the course of the hearing that the i j a the trier of fact has to be the one giving notice that corroborating evidence is going to be required before a credibility determination is made and think a lot of the government's position really relies on cross examination which i don't think is sufficient under run in lieu and our interpretation of what the statute requires so where in the record the i j a specifically told her that corroborating evidence was going to be required well ok at the january twenty ninth two thousand and eight hearing which is page eighty one of the record the immigration judge told the petitioner to bring supporting documents to her next hearing and that was after they had discussed identity documents because i believe she was she said she had some but had not provided the media and so the immigration judge went on to say well you need to bring any any supporting documents and as far as during the cross examination later that year the immigration judge did say why didn't you request these documents she did us the petitioner that i believe that was specifically after the petitioner had discussed her evidence that she was an owner of a beauty salon and that she'd been arrested and the immigration judge said after that point why didn't you request these documents because she had mentioned that she asked her mother to send certain documents and her mother did send her some identity documents and she was asked well why didn't you well what about why did you ask for these other documents and at that point i believe that the immigration judge who was never here and after that was the last just for the document and the generalized statement bring your supporting documents the next hearing those are the two pieces of evidence that the government to demonstrate the specifically put her on notice that here's the argument i would make if i were you and this is the question whether that would be enough i would say when they asked for continuance initially when they found out about the sister  is just that satisfy the statute i don't know that it would have before ran but just lou lighten it up enough so that that would be the i j a putting that side of the case and i take it you're going to take specifically asked her during that two thousand and eight hearing why didn't you request these documents and what county came out here one time right and then went back because i j no it came was she had representation and you know the statute does say you need to pry provide documents and the only documents that she provided were these identity documents and nothing other nothing else to support a claims not even an affidavit or she could've stated i'm sorry were affidavits from her family members and as far as her sister's testimony goes it doesn't really support a claim because right now do you now she's still here the petitioner yes i believe she's in the united states i haven't heard anything otherwise so if the government  believes that she did not sufficiently corroborate her claim and as far as the issue of discretion goes she failed to show that the agency abused i think on the idea of the notice requirement is for the  to tell a petitioner look if you don't corroborate your claim i'm going to make a ruling against you and here i don't know how she could infer why did you ask your mom that's a question that i posed during questioning i don't know how that would lead to petitioner to know that there would be an adverse finding unless she brings additional evidence well i think in general the statute that's puts her on notice that she needs to corroborate her claims in general and i was sure it's like saying in general put your best case forward and so right now you sort of knows that but i think the the all she did was fact it was more specific than that according to our prior case law that we're bound to situation i guess the question is whether that's the same as the situation i believe it's very similar to look notice i believe it's a very similar situation where she earlier in her hearing she was told to provide corroborating documents and she had many years to do so including you know after the remained by the board and when she decided to have her sister testify about her identity and that was a year and a half after her initial testimony so she had a long time and we continue on so the question is whether there's sufficient time i think that was plenty of time the question is whether she was ever explicitly told to do it you one thing with respect to the business is that by the time the second hearing came around the business had already been sold so she didn't have any that mother didn't have access to records there was some type of advertising that she apparently gave to her attorneys but it's not in the record i don't know why it was not submitted but i believe overall that the with respect to medical documents concerning her having received medical treatment and being rendered unconscious at the hands of the police to expect her family to obtain those records i think it would be quite ludicrous was there ever any mediation did you ever think this case ever go to our media