petitioner was granted a student visa he was a member of the morant clan at that time them are in clan ruled the country in one thousand nine hundred two the president of the country was forced to to leave the country it developed into chaos and a united states government granted temporary protected status to all somali nationals in the united states at that time and that temporary protected status continues to this day and in the the petitioner obtained temporary protective status in one thousand nine hundred two but did not renew it in a timely fashion and was subsequently denied protection but as things stand even today somalia is a country that does not have a functioning government and our country united states does recognize that fact now the lack of credibility finding by the immigration judge was based upon the petitioners testimony regarding the deaths of family members now the information regarding the the family members came to the petitioner when he was in this country and it was reported by a an individual with some klan connections that he referred to rouse as on call who you have double hearsay at best what we have is third hand accounting of the details of the killing now the people themselves have not surfaced and there has been no evidence presented in the record and indeed the government did not even cross exam on this issue and the government's brief indicates that even if the petitioners family members were murdered as alleged by members of the hawaii clan and that that in and of itself does not establish entitle meant and we contend that that is erroneous your honor so your position is that every member of the clan to which your client belongs aren't titled the cat really from the united states yes your honor and the united states recognizes that by granting  explanation perhaps on why he didn't extend his own temporary protected status because it's testimony was that he fell into a deep depression upon learning of do you think that be a greater reason to extend your temporary protection all of us have people told you that your family is being wiped out well you know there was an asylum hearing i think i'm not entirely sure what the details of his failure to show up but he wrote repeated letters to the immigration authorities yes yes your honor to to attempt to  have an opportunity to present his case now the again there is there was no cross examined by the government there is no evidence on the record to dispute the fact that number one he's a member of that way i believe that the official homeland security policy is that any somalian who is found in the borders of the united states is entitled to temporary protected status because of the lawless conditions that are occurring in somalia and primarily those are warlord governed areas predominantly by the whole why plans of his problem here is that he didn't ask for that protection he didn't we knew the protection your honor and subsequently when the convention against torture provision was enacted into law he filed a motion to reopen which was granted and he then had an opportunity to present his case on those bases and that leads me to the second basis for the  appeal and obviously the record is replete with instances where the immigration judge simply did not allow the petitioner to present his case there is some confusion in the record but the conduct at the hearing and then this night circuit court of appeals has repeatedly indicated there that they will not tolerate this type of intimidating acknowledgement of temporary protected status for for these individuals from this country beyond dispute recognizes that this is an area of the world where the fear of torture is commonplace this is not a fabricated application and the petitioner certainly should have been provided and of petitioners attorney with every opportunity to present his case in a reasonable manner without being subjected to harassment and page and a half questions and accusations which the courts have previously  want i'm sorry but then his cat application he said that a member of this clan and then in his testimony before the immigration judge he said my family was killed because of their membership in the klan and then as a result of that therefore i should get a cat protection and what the immigration judge said found was specifically and was that location he said that his sister died of injuries when she was in and that's what he said in his that we cation he didn't say that she was killed because of her membership in the klan but then in his testimony he said that his brother and sister were killed because of their membership in the clan and he made no mention of the fact that she died later was able to travel she traveled and then later guy at the end of the injury and then in his testimony before the immigration judge she said no she was killed because of her member she in the bladder were killed because of their membership in the queen and he didn't say where where she does well the immigration judge found that the geographic location was that the discrepancy in that which she tried to explain didn't make a difference springing something on somebody well again i think that the immigration judge was trying to explain the problem with the case and that was an adverse credibility finding i and the immigration judge became frustrated by the fact that they didn't answer the question and said ok well then i'll just i'll reserve that until the end but i think what's important here on areas that the petitioner didn't file a reply br and here in court today he's not indicated what evidence he could have presented that the immigration judge prevented him from presenting what additional evidence was there that goes to reviving his credibility and the attorney was allowed to ask additional questions and none of those went to the credibility of the petitioner and so he can't claim prejudice because he hasn't shown what he couldn't present based on the immigration  testimony that was what appeared in his application he said that she had died of her injuries and that this bill issue here before the court is whether the immigration judge  well i would submit to him and he did say that she died in somalia before she ever reached kenya and then in his application it was that she died of her injuries that she continued on and then died  i don't want to bother you case and in this case the issue is whether there are specific cogent reasons what the petitioner is trying to get this court to do really is to really weigh the evidence and the question here is whether substantial evidence supports the immigration judge is adverse credibility finding and the court had previously brought up a matter that i'd like to address tonight is whether the fact that he the one to the number of this claim and entitle him to cap protection the answer is no just simply because of his membership doesn't entitle him based the denial of protection based on the adverse credibility findings i think  dispute that that was the basis for the attack of the rape and the subsequent that the only issue was whether or not she died on the spot or whether the bus continued on its way in she subsequently died it appears that regardless of what location she died it was near the somali ten year border and the extent of her injuries were  extensive enough to produce the death so the issue of clan membership was not an issue of inconsistency in the petitioner's case and again  pointed out we're dealing with double or triple hearsay on the details of all of the death and the death at the time of this hearing had occurred eleven or twelve years earlier so there are substantial reasons