is not before this court mr barr is asking the court to review his applications for asylum withholding and cat the denial of his applications for with asylum withholding and catwoman is not before the there is a terrorist bar but the basis for a be the basis for the finding in the limited context of the adjustment that the terrorist bar applied was based on adverse credibility and the reason for the denial of the asylum and withholding was based on adverse credibility so if so why are there separate concepts the asylum requests and withholding requests yes ok i guess i was not denied because he wasn't because the terrorist bar applied this time claim was denied because of the adverse credibility determination in this court can review the adverse credibility determination and the terrorist bar was based upon the adverse credibility correct and we're not appealing the denial of the adjustment application you just know that if you were ultimately to prevail on your argument regarding the credibility determination would go back to the back to the jury couldn't they just  they could accept if mr barr is found to be credible then the terrorists then his statements about his involvement with the f t c do not support a finding of the well this court can only review what the b i relied on in denying asylum and withholding and cat but it's on the record it is in the record your honor but it's based on subsequent testimony as well so your the court found that the that mr ball was in and was excuse me adversely credible in the determination of asylum and withholding testimony four years later was relied upon by the judge to find that the terrorist bar existed that testimony  was related to adjustment into his in admissibility under adjustment so this court cannot review can't cannot make an independent finding regarding the terrorist bar and apply that to asylum withholding because that was not relied on and wasn't of withholding used is it still necessary to reach the credibility to determine for the purpose of withholding yes because the withholding because yes because they did because doesn't even need to reach the issue of adverse credibility to find cat because the the issue on adverse credibility is the level of involvement a level of mr bosler involvement with the f t c but under cat the court the b i a did not even consider all the factors that are relevant and this is this is just like come all this versus ins where the adverse credibility determination does not render mr bond eligible for a cat and the cia failed to consider any of the factors that go towards cat including his f b his being an ethnic deal and his family members association with the i m f to see an f t c his association with the m f d c even if it's significant or not significant the judge didn't didn't consider that and in addition this is a unique case because the adverse credibility finding is not because the whether or not certain facts exist but whether or not certain facts exist in a certain way and so the board failed to consider how the adverse credibility determination actually impacted the consideration of cat especially if mr boz involvement in the d c was significant it would increase the risk of torture for mr bob what do we state department reports well the state department reports on their own would fall would establish that mr bott would compel a finding that mr baez more likely than not to be tortured for example if i could just have a moment the  the country condition reports the state department reports state that being an ethnic deal on its own is a grounds for arbitrary arrest detention torture and extra execution the amnesty international one thousand nine hundred and eight report says that most of the arrested appeared to be prisoners of conscious because they were members of the deal a community and held without any evidence of individual responsibility for act of violence so mr bazil ethnicity on its own supports the finding and come off this as you can look at country alone to find that to compel a grant of report torture systematic use of torture against virtually every detainee occurs and people have been imprisoned because they were members of the deal ethnic group and for that reason alone considered to be potential rebels to be i not looking into the country conditions for them or the past torture of mr bott is possible and i would bring the court's attention to the fact that this is a pretty really real i d act case and so there is  more rigorous scrutiny of the adverse credibility determination regarding mr abbas torture there's three reports from doctors corroborating one that the physical injuries remaining are consistent with his description of the torture that he received when he was detained to the doctors found that he had p t s d resulting from the trauma he experienced from torture the government points out that there are these letters from family members that don't mention that he was tortured but the government mischaracterizes that as refuting his torture that's un permissible speculation because the the there is no information in the record what the writers of the of the letter were told what they were information they were requested to provide so the fact that it doesn't mention it mr abbas specific torture doesn't refute that action that it ever occurred so this goes to the adverse credibility determine yes your honor because there are plausible explanations for these discrepancies in the adverse credibility determination and under the real id act these minor details which are not you know which are supported by the doctors reports and which the found letters from the family do not refute the torture these go to the heart of this these are the only parts of the adverse credibility that go to the heart of the matter meaning his fear of persecution the other aspects of the adverse credibility determination go just to morning your honor may please the court stephanie had this for respondent in this case mr bob has provided and retracted and adjusted the story of his involvement with the m f d c on several occasions  in fact his petition for review seems to be a way to show excuses for the inconsistency is in his multiple declarations his robot all his testimony and immigration court but the changed so one of the way in other areas so one of the ways that his story did change and this is connected to the immigration judges finding about how he had a letter from uncle whom he claims was actually arrested and detained with him and then tortured at exactly the same time and the letter that he provided from the uncle did not say anything about mr bott actually being tortured now counsel subsequently has tried to say oh well that there's no evidence explaining why he would have submitted that letter but he submitted that letter in support of his asylum application to help to bolster his application and show that he is entitled to the relief that he sought additionally the interview that he had with the asylum authors or it was there anything in the record that suggested that mr his uncle and said this is what i want you to write there isn't but he was given an opportunity throughout his he had two hearings regarding the regarding his applications and he was given lots of opportunities to explain the various inconsistency in his testimony and he didn't he did not provide any testimony explaining that he simply wanted a letter from his uncle to describe what his now i'm cognizant of the court's preston about deeds however if you look at the the context of when he describes this to the asylum officer it is done in the context of explaining that this event occurred very close in time to his departure from senegal and arrival in the united states so and that is that is the main crux of his past mistreatment cl and his testimony when you move forward to him then submitting a new declaration that reverted back to that prior date so when he when he submitted the one hundred and eighty six and th yes so he went from date yet again so i point this out as a way of showing that while there are significant inconsistency is in this record regarding the petitioner's involvement with the m f t see whether he recruited for them when he recruited whether he provided financial support for them there was also some questions regarding his claims mistreatment in senegal because of if we are gree with you on the adverse  credibility termination what issue does that go to the obviously goes to the cat protection in the form of deferral is to go to any other issue in this case so he goes to all of the issues in this case the you know the government argued in its brief that the court didn't need to reach the adverse credibility finding for asylum and withholding due to the the terrorism bar and i can go back to that if your your honour's would like but there is a very strong adverse credibility finding in this case so the court could still deny asylum and withholding based on the adverse credibility finding if it so distant your position on jur position is that the court doesn't have jurisdiction to review the asylum denial because the petitioner was found i recognize that he was found to have a terrorism bar applied to him as part of his adjustment application however that's not an inquiry that is specific to a particular application for relief the statute provides that if the person is found to be inadmissible for having in gauged  terrorist activity that he that finding then dictates that he is in eligible for asylum and withholding that finding on it in this ability was relevant to adjustment because a person cannot adjust us and that's dated march th twenty two thousand and nine dollars and i don't see any discussion of this terrorism bar at all it goes it's all called a more traditional immigration case that we see all the time if we don't have a decision from the b s a on the building of the terrorism bar how do we review it now you do well you do have a decision from the b i a on the plague ability of the terrorism bar it's the decision that the petitioner has said this court doesn't have jurisdiction to review the adjustment denial the petitioner has approached this case as a way to only look at asylum withholding and cat when the board has already made the relevant determination as to whether this individual is eligible for asylum and withholding and the in the fact that that didn't come in the asylum and withholding context does 't doesn't make a difference because it is a finding regarding inadmissibility that's the two thousand and thirteen decision that's the two thousand and thirteen decision your honor and i'm not saying this is right or wrong as when you have any authority that allows us to look to something in two thousand and thirteen or later to offensively cancel an appeal from two thousand and nine well i think the way that we approached this in our briefing wasn't that it cancels an appeal but simply that if the if the court w to conclude that the petitioner that the adverse credibility finding in this case was in error that remained would be futile because what we have right now is an unchallenged determination by the board that he's inadmissible for providing material support to a terrorist organization and that decision renders him ineligible for asylum and withholding so that was the way that we had parsed this out in our in our brief i want to turn a little bit to you we still have to reflection that to review the adverse credibility determination as it might relate to that to really yes your honor you do because the cat so the jurisdictional the juror the the court does not have jurisdiction to review whether an individual had engaged in terrorist activity for the purposes of asylum that is the only that is the only application that i agree with of removing it applies to withholding so the material support of terrorism bar applies to withholding but the court still has jurisdiction to review that the jurisdictional bar only applies to asylum however the petitioners in this case have stated repeatedly that they are not seeking review of that and we talked about this in our brief the adverse credibility finding is relevant to cat and i want to spend a little bit of time discussing this because the petitioners had have made various arguments about the way that the immigration judge and the board handled the cat clean now it's well established by this court's precedent that when a person has a has an asylum claim and then uses that same set of facts to premise the cat claim the adverse credibility finding is relevant however it is not dispositive and that is not the way that the agency approached this case both the immigration judge and the board after recognizing and while the the immigration judge after issuing an adverse credibility determination and the board after affirming that recognized that the same claim essentially applied to the cat claims but they didn't stop there there's an there's an analysis of the country conditions evidence the immigration judge in particular noted that there's been a change for the better in country conditions and that's something that the petitioner is overlook in their brief they like to focus on evidence or from the late one thousand nine hundred and ninety s however the two between the f t c and the senegalese government this included a pledge to reintegrate former combatants and rebuild the region and the senegal legislature also voted unanimously to grant irreversible so while while the government does not does not seek to downplay that there are there were certainly some major there was violence between the f t c and the government and that it impacted people in the region there has been a positive change council you heard opposing counsel suggests that the state department report in  itself supported her position with your response the government disagrees with that i would note that this is the department of state report to the extent that the petitioner is relying on his d o b in this city it doesn't even mention that group in the most recent state department report in the record it's also a very high bar the convention the convention against torture claims require that an individual show that it's more likely than not that he would be subjected to torture and this court's review dictates that there needs to be sufficient evidence to compel the conclusion that that would be the case and once you burden and here i also do point out that the i g the the board decision in its last sentence after recognizing that the adverse credibility finding is implicated here then cites the exhibits that have the state department report and it cites all of the country conditions evidence that the petitioner cited so while it's not a well it's not a long analysis of the evidence the evidence that was provided did not require a lengthy explanation particularly when taking into account the adverse credibility determination here honor discrepancies have to go to the heart of the client so does is that the case here with respect to the discrepancies regarding his testimony about the level of his involvement with the m f d c yes you're on the nature of his claim for signing yes your honor and i think this is this is why i bring up the varying dates that were provided for the torture that c member he actually provides accounts of working with people who were the actual leaders in the and that d c that's that's strong evidence that any kind of a harm that he would have experienced was very much connected to his involvement with the f t c and so being able to parse out what kind of involvement he had and whether he was  whether he whether he had whether he was very involved with the group and when it occurred is relevant to his to his torture claim i see that i'm out of time your hon thank you regarding the the terrorist foreign whether or not this court has jurisdiction to review the i found in finding that the material bar rendered mr bond admissible for adjustment stated that we don't know the extent of respondents participation with the m f d c so the judge found that because they don't know the state the extent of the participation that mr bott had failed to meet his burden to show he wasn't barred by the terrorists by and the judge also based this on additional inconsistent testimony that additional testimony was not in front of the b i a in determining the asylum in withholding and cat applications furthermore the government argues that even if this court were to find that mr ba was credible that it would be futile to remand because of the terrorist bar the terrorist bar rests on him not being credible on on the his testimony regarding his minimal association and evaluation of whether or not his participation or involvement rises to the level of material support because the basis for material support was on him not be on the judge saying we don't know what the basis of your involvement was the fact that the v i i i says there is no independent evidence is highly indicative of the fact that the i j a did not consider the evidence in in the form of country conditions and that the b i a didn't can consider so the fact that the b i a list some  be such a consideration the i j a simply says and this is page six hundred and ten dollars of the certified administrative record that problems still exist and there are still human rights violations being committed but at there are matters that have occurred which seem to show promise for the resolution of the conflict now this is not a finding of changed circumstances this is not engagement in the likelihood of future torture this is not a consideration of the factors that the judge is required to consider