right to counsel did not exist my client's asylum claim was result from start to finish in twenty eight dollars business days the lack of counsel five and the speed at which it was result tainted every aspect of the case the lack of  didn't know that they existed because he didn't have a whole is present the catch twenty two and it will cause an important issue to what they are you frustrating especially for a right to counsel provided by congress if not addressed in this case the issue likely to continue to percolate up to the court you know i've read the entire record here one might take a different view of whether this was  immigration judge gave him a list of counsel gave him more time then gave him more time again and he when the immigration judge said you're ready to proceed i've told you if you don't get counsel you have to proceed he did not ask for more time he gave no indication whatsoever that he was raising a lack hernandez large decision and racey be the judge was required to either get an express waiver of the my client's right to counsel or provide a real realistic and reasonable opportunity to find counsel he did him a credible so the adverse credibility decision rested on several fragments from the non verbal them notes of the credible fear interview five minutes which was conducted by phone through an interpreter the notes were largely consistent with my client five hundred and eighty nine and of hearing testimony and those fragments do not constitute reasonable substantial and probative evidence and i don't think the adverse credibility finding can be looked at in a vacuum apart from th worry remotely material and point they were of the type that the i j a had wanted to see in the case my client didn't have time to get them from cuba he was detained he had no counsel he didn't have them in time for the individual hearing which was scheduled understand the finding as to credibility to be partially dependent on the absence of corroboration or do you find the we do understand the i and j s determination of credibility to be solely based on the inconsistency and the corroboration to only arise in the course of the i g s determination that he had explained away the inconsistency do you understand the difference between those two and i believe that was the i g f concerns but the asylum officer is not what i understand but with respect let me put it this way one possibility is that the credibility finding that he was not credible was based on in consistency when you make such a finding of a lack of credibility based on inconsistent sees it is possible for the one seeking asylum to whether it's a it does seem like the inconsistency has played a role and i can't tell from the record whether that was the exclusive basis for the finding of no credibility or whether the finding credibility was partly employments by the determination by the i j that there was no corroboration for the story and i can't quite tell what the b i thought i j was doing on that point and just to make clear why i'm asking you this if i were to agree with you that the inconsistency is we're too picayune to support a finding of no credibility yet i also thought part of the credibility finding with based on a lack of cooperation that might support i did not have time to get the corroboration of my client did put provide some corroboration as i didn't put the question right you're not answering the question i want to ask if the credibility finding rests on two leg a finding of inconsistency plus skepticism about the story because of an absence of corroboration then determining that the inconsistency the loan are to minor to support a finding  on the other hand if the finding of a credibility rests soley on a finding of inconsistency and that's wrong then we would just reverse the credibility finally because the only basis for the credibility finding would be the inconsistency so quite a lot in my mind rides on which of the two things the i j a thought it was doing and which of the two things the b i i thought the idea was doing one of the firm the i j a so i'm trying to get your view as to which thing you thought the ages you may be explaining stay at the hospital and certainly no mention of his claim that the government set a bunch of good ones to leap out of a car or stabbed him guess i just don't see that corroborate so much of anything other than he was from cuba he was born there he lived and  credibility is established by the corroborative documents but i'm having trouble seeing out well if my client's testimony was otherwise consistent with his you know from these documents do show that they corroborate you know is x hill political activity in cuba and that was actually before the i j a at the individual hearing there was a letter from the delegate of the political group my client was involved in the i j doesn't address that in addition the newly submitted evidence does not address result of the credibility concerns raised by the immigration judge which support the conclusion reached by him i mean that be i actually did consider those two arguments to a lie so i misread it it may be a bit unusual for them to have done that but it seems to me that they are saying they want to help them and it doesn't change anything  that they now exist and happen provided that we don't d know beyond those two things that they articulated and we don't know what their reasoning was if they did consider them or why they were not for robert i mean i think at a minimum i'm that well the statement is what it is i would say that i j that's a fact finder that should be looking at the documents and considering them and my client should be given an opportunity to provide testimony after the documents and you know provide him other than his word of an offer proof that it was attached to that motion to stay that i filed he received a document from his mother after the by a decision with a you know chain of custody explaining exactly how these documents came to the united states my client the point of this case what happened this case progressed so quickly in the immigration court that my client was never able to put all of his testimony out present the evidence he did not have a full and fair hearing and he does have a very credible political opinion chase from cuba he just was it was as if he was blindfolded with his hands behind his back because he was pro se he was detained he was detained in rhode island and she has almost no time when you think about somebody who's detained in a foreign national y the new documents just on the grounds that the inconsistency is that the i'd say at least partially relied on could not support a no credibility finding given the nature of those inconsistent i were to agree with you on that that would support vacating to be a decision so that a credibility germination could be remade with the insights from our court being offered to the i j and the that when you make it you can focus on those inconsistencies given their nature if we were to remain in do that what should we say about the corroborating documents there  what i would say is that everything that happened up until now was tainted by my client's lack of counsel if we put aside the lack of counsel point for a  on the exhausts i'm just trying to think about what our discussion is or how to handle it because on the one hand if i'm troubled that there is a finding on credibility based on inconsistency that i think under our law don't support that finding if it then goes back to the i j should the i j a be blind to all the new evidence in the effort or is that something that did go back you would then have an opportunity to try and put that before the i j in the i j could just rule on it and it would come up in the ordinary course in the next appeal or is that something that is before us now to decide whether goes the i j i just think my read through that some looking for some oh well i think that my client was entitled to a full and fair hearing those corroborating documents like payment afterwards him on the ground that the inconsistency is were too small to support the credibility finding would you then have the opportunity to introduce the documents at that new hearing is there anything that would preclude you from doing that even if we were just silent on the topic no i mean what ordinarily happens in these cases when they're well not be safe and what we often see in the immigration court is that is recessed and chase the come back is reset for a new individual hearing and then the judge is just court had jurisdiction to entertain a simply relates to the adverse credibility finding although you all were just addressing the council the other issues that were raised by that decision or  already the issues about the agency's average credibility to terminate a while we believe that substantial evidence to support the immigration judge in the board's orders credibility id in there should be an acknowledgement of how it's conducted it is not a transcript notes are made and recorded and the only thing that the the interview but the i j a given the propel it was that you have to acknowledge the limitations of that kind of interview really is quite far too much weight to get to the consistency said didn't inconsistency that the summary which is what the summary of the credible fear interview which was what he was asked to determine whether that was accurate as the summary say only for time that's summary paragraph makes no reference to a number i know is that just so there was no point was he asked whether the answer that is put forth in the notes as to what he answered whether that specific answer was accurate he is only asked is this summary of our interview accurate he says yes and nothing if not summary paragraph gives a number so there's no inconsistency between his statement that the summary is accurate and what he then testifies the only discuss can see is between the notes of his answer and what he says but he then explains why there might be that discrepancy was goes just to ju point which isn't the judge posed to take into account the nature of the credible fear interview and the fact that there is no verbatim transcript of thanks but i question that point judge yes the judge is supposed to inconsistency it's the fact that the judge carefully questioned him as to those in consistencies to get an explanation the judge found that he did not think those explanations were adequate and the judge told him you could make up for  evidence you're presenting at the hearing is not sufficient he then presents to the b i a further evidence he says is evidence and a b i e says well we've looked at it and we don't think it does corroborate is sad in a sense your position yes that's correct we were of the view that the event sounds like you agree with that at least part of the i j s credibility finding depended on a determination that the inconsistency were of a nature that would support a finding him not would you agree with your opponent that if we did they caved and remand on the credibility finding that in that new hearing the i j a could then take account of the new documents thank you for that question judge judge that concludes the arguments for today this session of the honorable united states court of appeals is now recess until the next session of the court god save the united states of america and this honorable court counsel you may disconnect from the meeting