e and you know i don't want to necessarily suggest that i don't agree with you or do agree with you but i'm perhaps a little more interested right now in the removal aspect of this and that confuses me a little bit so maybe you could perhaps talk to me a little bit about  that he was designated to return to afghanistan correct correct and then there was a whole pecking order after that i think i ran venezuela candidate whatever right yes i haven't seen that play out did you object to the fact that the believe i get that but you know if there's an adverse credibility determination it doesn't have to have anything to do with afghanistan and as i understand laura we still would have to you know support the determination of the credibility that with what he said the better read of venezuela but you know it seemed to me that he said some sort of risk nonetheless being sent back to afghanistan even though he may not be entitled to asylum here and i just was wondering how that plays out in the real world does he have any issue if we do not agree with you about returning to afghanistan it is an issue which was raised or preserved yes around every believe that it was raised and we believe that even the immigration judge agrees that he has shown some plausible claim that he would that he has fear of returning to afghanistan and if not if they have country to be removed to as to the we explained that our view is that if there is no indication that the petitioner has legal status or some sort of permanent residency offer in any of those countries then he should regressions should not have included in the removal order maybe i should ask you have a series of questions but i'm concerned about how i'm not familiar with that world how these remove orders work if the  born or if he is the citizen of that country we do not need acceptance of that country how does the term a nation been made yet that afghanistan will or will not except it have nothing and how does credibility determination and it doesn't have to bear upon anything that he talked about in terms of afghanistan right so he can't get asylum here so you're going to be goes back to afghanistan even though it seems to me that he may be a real risk there because he's a very i think it's legitimate that these people are persecuted relatives of his have been killed apparently and now he's the christian i guess there's no question that he has produced his certificate that shows that he is you know a christian at in the process of removing removal i'm sure she knows more than i do but you know raising that issue here he's not challenging going back to afghanistan to see no we are challenging the alternative countries well but the alternative countries don't kick in and listen ganesan reject se at the st hearing stating that he has a sister in canada there's no history that position or ever stepped into the country or any permanent residency in the country of canada  it should not have been and what are you not i don't understand that argument though i understand it in terms of a firm resettlement claim but that's not what's issue here the question really is whether there's another country that's willing to accept him whether he was firmly resettled before that or not and i'm not sure how you've raised an objection to that you've complained about firm resettlement but i think that's irrelevant so where have you raised an objection that gives us an opportunity to say if qualified for asylum and it's up to the country to decide where to send him and it's not up to the individual say well you know i don't really like things they're very much so i don't see where you have raised a legal objection going to some other country and i am asking you is there something in your brief that i've missed either this firm or settlement which i think is irrelevant have you raised anything in your brief that really puts it issue the question of the possibility of him being sent to one of the alternative countries know you chose cheat canada and canada is not an option so then it goes to the nd choice which is citizen which is afghanistan so then number three is the lesser connection which was venezuela and iran now once the  this because there is a stay in place in this case d h us has not tried to get travel documents yet once travel documents are found then we'll find out whether afghanistan will take him the government well it's only till this case court this court decision is made then we reach a teach us reach out to afghanistan find out whether they'll take him if they won't then teach us is allowed to look at alternatives like venezuela or iran joe i'm concerned about the process was there is there a process in place where somebody like this person can say look even if i don't qualify for asylum i don't want to go back to afghanistan and he is why is there is any this made of the been raised in this case but i just wondered could it have been raised and is there a process where that issue could be raised before the jury if that was phrased i g s duty is to explore so in this situations like iran venezuela and afghanistan the immigration judge is required to go through and address catholicism petitioner claims he doesn't want to return to afghanistan because he's catholic right and head of the house right and then the immigration judge discussed throughout the hearing his fears of returning  adverse credibility stands and he is entered removed when he discussed the fear that dealt with the asylum issue the only right i guess this is a thing in my mind that you know you don't qualify for asylum process where somebody can say look i don't qualify for asylum please do not send me back to afghanistan and he is why because employers will because of my risk vs don't qualify for asylum and the stay that but nonetheless is the way of saying turns over to the department of homeland security stuff is the process like that that's not now once he let me let me interject here i've been doing this a long time we have a lot of immigration cases and i know there have been cases where circumstances wind up changing because some of these cases take a long time i recall years ago for example when syria turned upside down and the u s government stopped sending people to syria so there are internal processes i understand your answer to be that it's not going to help here because in fact these issues about i'm a christian and afghanistan is bad for me really were aired and the immigration judge and his adverse credibility determination basically set those arguments aside but afghanistan has changed further in the succeeding years and indeed there is now a very real possibility the taliban will become part of the government they are what process does d h s have to consider that possibility so d h s s in the instance you gave with syria would stop removing aliens to syria in a situation like that however i have reached out to teach as recently as the beginning of this week and they still are removing aliens to afghanistan that is their decision aliens even if they are hi sorry if they are christians right well they take just it's a general we are still removing aliens to the country as judge clifton mentioned like in a serious situation where they were to stop moving to syria that is not the situation here they are still removing to afghanistan so this is the  about how this process unfolds and i appreciate your education thank you would anyone like to address the adverse credibility find because obviously the demeanor petitioner the immigration judge pointed out many problems and at just two things to mention petitioner raised the general earnest during direct comment however the immigration judge also said he was non responsive and cross and from questions from this court and found petitioners testimony baffling there the immigration judge also pointed out to meijer inconsistency it was petitioners burden to prove that the evidence compelled reversal of the agency's adverse credibility determination which is the only issue properly before this court petitioner raises firm resettlement however the immigration judge specifically declined to address that issue because of the fatal adverse credibility determine if all those are very credibility  well there was some the immigration judge did explore some issues with us all the kufa losses i'm questions because petitioner says he lived converted in april th teen in venezuela was there for a year and a half however he didn't have enough time to be baptized when three weeks to mexico was suddenly baptized and then submitted that as is corroborated document so the adverse credibility determination is fatal to all three claims it's fatal to his case as a whole and if there's any other question s decision that i'm not so sure about that sorry part is what gives me pause because that's basically recited as the reason that this individual left afghanistan with his family at age five or some when he's when he's not making the decisions for the family now granted he's the only witness and so that's part of the same package with regard to credibility but even people that aren't credible may be telling a story that has pieces that are true and i don't know that the immigration judge ever grappled with the question of what happens to somebody leaving aside the conversion  catholicism what might happen to somebody who says are of if returned to afghanistan his family left a long time ago that doesn't seem to be much in dispute is there any other thing for the agency to look at there no because like you mentioned at st credibility is fatal to all three claims his claim for venezuela his claim prior ran and to focus on the potato immigration judge cited a demeanor finding that would apply to him as a whole and his non responsive answers he the immigration judge provided i counted almost fifteen instances of problematic nonresponsive testimony from petitioner and and to be honest i really don't quarrel with immigration judge did not say that it's not credible but b that has a very or that his family was killed any of that was considered so i'm concerned about that too because of the adverse credibility determination focus on what he said about iran baptism or venezuela i get it and i guess i did a lot of that mean that's lights out but there's no adverse credibility determination that was made that maybe under the law doesn't have to be made in terms of the fact that he has these problems in  judge had was quote on hopefulness in filling out some gaps with regards to his belief with catholicism and at times narrative monologue these are terms that we don't believe shows would like to ask the court to also consider practicality of applying alternative countries are is there a limit to how many countries can be included in the removal order or designated by the petitioner and if the government