abramoff criticised corruption in local government and later he criticized inhumane activities in prisons this is not a case like i'm sure a huge number that you've seen before of someone coming and telling you i don't believe in communism and therefore look at all the evidence from one thousand and fifty three and soviet union and don't tell me back that's not this case and judge warren attempted rape that was critically important to the judge you can find out and literally ten different places in his oral opinion he also focused on other issues not germane to what actually focused on the trial in a system where the record certainly is undisputed and i think it raises the level of common knowledge that it was a soviet trial during the time of soviet dictatorship when the interests of the party were free and everything else so are we supposed to presume that every criminal trial that took place in the soviet union for any type of crime whatsoever was tainted that all of them and stewart convicted were convicted ny type of an image relation with this girl it was never whether alone ok so we don't have an we don't have the kobe bryant here we don't have a situation where there is the saxon there's a question about whether it's consensual or not so we committing wait were attempted rape what did they look for what did they find what did they take documents having to do with his political acts who was no picking his pants or not taking other other aspects of other parts of the clothing it being committed by the egyptians to whose arm one on his hands the blood matches that of the victim cut just go through and look at the record to see what that court found to be particularly serious reasons and then look at what we have here we don't have that kind of evidence the court did not specifically state i find mr rather think credible but that's the us that the court disregard his testimony was that reasonable why did the court do that what reasons are in the record to show that that was a reasonable thing for the judge to do not the basis for the court to make that decision documentary human rights organization involved in his case doesn't mean that we throw out the relation the human rights organizations opinion of this being a political prisoner or their designating him a political prisoner or doesn't mean we throw out all the evidence having to do with his status as a political prisoner the record does not show all that all the documentary evidence is based on your his own words it shows a part of it came from  other sources the judge did not even mention that evidence what did the judge focused on the focus not a country report does the country report talk about a change in circumstances having to do with how corrupt local officials now local governments and it's the same program the street meant and the prison system again this is not a case about someone talking about communism during the communist era and communism and the noncommunist are the same situation the judge didn't doesn't doesn't focus on that he focuses on the big picture he focuses on how he thinks things should be reasonably how this makes sense to him this doesn't make sense he doesn't look at the evidence the record does not establish anything about a rape other than testimony from the alleged victim i've already talked about the inconsistency is inherent in her testimony all the other evidence there the district the immigration judge did not factor in that was not reasonable your is entitle to silent and withholding of removal in our opinion is also entitled relief under the convention against being detained for a month and those cases say we're not going to hold that should be the level of torture that involves the convention fine that's not what we have here we have yuri being sent back to ukraine where the government admits he's going to be imprisoned not going to leave for a month we have unconverted and contested testimony of the inhumane treatment there and we have that just like anybody coming back to ukraine out of the blue we have yuri loose spent ten years there was protested record shows i think it's thirty two times or thirty four times who's been in the underground cells many times who when he was released was told if he goes back to ukraine and starts talking about what's going on and continues on his complaints about the abuses in the prison system what's going to happen to him what does the evidence in the record show about that he remains eligible for deferral of removal under the convention against torture but only if you met its burden of proving that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured with a meeting of the regulations issued under the torture convention if he is required to return to the ukraine grand jury to deciding whether to issue an indictment requested by a prosecutor or perhaps a magistrate determining whether to issue a search warrant requested by the police department and the evidence that the immigration judge took that has already been  already him for being a political activist so there's nothing there's nothing in the record to show they're the things that judge nelson just mentioned a very the first one is in the record the one about the one  including including the charge that she was in effect forced or pressure or blackmailed by the police to testify against this program because of her relationship with the son of a police captain and then was with obtained by his mother regarding the victim's medical history were quite the opposite she was examined for evidence of cephalus and found to be clean there was no evidence that she had a realised he was going to have a problem in explaining why this girl brought the charge against him in the first place well how do you get around though her claim that she was a virgin when she's three months pregnant she claimed at the first trial that she was a virgin and then it later was revealed that she was pregnant she was inconsistent not point but that doesn't mean that she is not a credible witness with regard to rape and again you have to step back and say well what was there probable cause for believing this and you had testimony from her and she said she never ever wavered from her claim that mr abramoff forced himself upon her there were testimony from several of the witnesses there was the fact that he burn and so if we take all of this test of it required to take all of this testimony is true where does that leave us in this case what you have is evidence on the one hand which was the fact that there was a rape charge brought against him and then you have his testimony if you've said that it's true that he was a political activist you don't but there is a disconnect there and we say in our great it may well have been that mr abramoff was in fact the political activists that he said he was but that doesn't mean that he wasn't capable of attempted rape that's part of the well if human nature you can be a good person and have political courage and protest the system in your country and still want to particular night perhaps having had a bit to drink try to force yourself on someone coaching her on how to testify and and you have and then and then the question upon review your honor is that that is such is that such overwhelmingly clear compelling evidence that required the immigration judge to find as mr obama wanted to find which was the trial was put up job from the beginning he did this may not be this is this may not it's not overwhelming evidence that gives you such reliance on this testimony even if you accept it as credible that that permits the court to then overturn what the immigration judge found it and that and i get to get back to the standard here or you have to find out is whether there was probable cause probable cause to believe that this person was crying not the trial court here you don't want to find the truth the charge was true you simply have to find  released during that entire nine your time he was never physically beaten whatsoever he was allowed to wander around the prison and there's no other prisoners he was allowed to write some letters outside the prison because he was after you keep his mother  don't have a choice we have to find stories come that's not reasonable really regret i never had to come up came up after the immigration judge made it very clear he was going to take that still be a trial just like the trial united states who's going to look at it he wasn't to look at the testimony w was treated and then she was released for treatment at home but the point is not whether who gave them the point is she had a relationship with the police investigator son should that be a factor into whether this might have been a fabricated case yes it should