fled persecution in her homeland of somalia just as one was traumatized multiple times in her short seventeen years before she arrived in new york city six days before the world trade center was attacked on nine eleven  she feared then and she still does fear being subjected to the most severe form of female genital mutilation as it is practiced on ninety eight percent somali women she also claims past persecution of you to death threats because her speculation and conjecture the judge ignored virtually all of the relevant information in the record supporting this arguments credibility and claims presumably because of this unfounded adverse credibility finding the judge that is the case or not regarding either question of law or constitutional things that you point you well i just thought i heard you say was there wasn't substantial evidence yes however there is an additional component to this which is that the judge was mentioned by the judge only essentially in passing at the end of the decision there was no information that she relied on to state that at the time bar is actually has a two part in else as to the first part is whether or not the applicant did file within the first year of her arriving here she affirmatively applied for asylum the second part is whether there are any changes or extraordinary circumstances that would excuse that one year the reason that the judge apparently didn't believe ms austin on this point is related to the date that she entered the united states i mean there's a question very different very different way you were correct that the credibility determination doesn't stand up on the withholding in cat claims yes we have got precedent which says confront the rather complicated jurisdictional question we could avoid that on right now and and let the i j a start out the asylum claim and if you're not right on the credibility determination with respect to the withholding c i'm well aware of that so and so the best we could do even if we had jurisdiction would be to return it yes that would be the conclusion of that and then one of the at that point the judge could reconsider week that she also has a sort of a subjective fear based on her testimony regarding the harassment that she endured by her aunt and that she would certainly  the ninety percent alone is well above the withholding standard or the ten percent standard as far as other issues regarding credibility many of the points that the judge makes can found several categories one her identity secondly the rape in the reporting of that to the therapist as well as  the attacks and what was that the death threats whether they were made on the first of the second attack as well as the travels that she had from kenya to the united states and within the united states from new york to oakland on each of those individual points there is the government would agree that the real id act has little if any effect right now on this particular case because the court doesn't need to invoke i n e two forty two in order to solve the issues regarding the credibility finding  has there's absolutely no restriction on this court's ability to review the adverse credibility finding in light of the withholding claim therefore there is no need to even visit the jurisdictional issue with respect to the one year  doesn't seem to have been raised specifically in this case that the petitioners on availability of corroborating evidence of that issue therefore the changes made in two forty two before by the real id act would also not seem to be at issue in this case this case rests entirely on the immigration judges adverse credibility finding in the petitioner presented at the press the testimony presented by the petitioner in this case the immigration judge found that she was not credible and based her finding it would appear from the decision or on of the immigration judge questioned whether she was ever in somalia or whether she was even being persecuted in somalia the immigration judge found based upon the identified basis that she didn't find her credible so she didn't believe her on one instance she immigration judge gave her the opportunity kind of to rectify that and she didn't provide an explanation that the immigration judge found sufficient she stated she didn't understand the question well she didn't understand the question she understand properly the first two times it was posed to her and then on the third time she recanted her testimony on that issue and then the immigration judge even at that point gave her an opportunity to say you need an interpreter are you having difficulty you not understanding and she said no and that w inconsistency of the you can see that the immigration judge based that particular portion of the record her finding then there were the inconsistency or at least the the confusing testimony regarding her claim of rate that she claimed was based upon her aunt's desire to have a g m performed on her now the immigration judge just i was not the first person in this hearing to bring up the issue of whether she sought medical care that is she was raised by petitioners on council on direct examination and petitioners explanation for that was we didn't have any money she didn't any of the names places that came later were not her reasoning for not seeking medical testimony she specifically stated it's because we didn't have any money and then the immigration judge later question saying what how did you have money if you were living in abject poverty for three years following this rate where did your font family be able to amass those kind of assets to smuggle you out of the country it wasn't so much a it was not a subjective finding as to where the money should be spent it was a question of whether the money was there at all and that led the immigration judge to find that the fact that there she would claim that they were living in abject poverty without running water with nothing and then all the sudden be able to sell enough of their items and have jewels and all of these things that i would a night to drive from here to city to oakland on a bus and that was not a situation where she was seven years old and wouldn't have had any recollection of it and didn't understand the language she herself aims to have been on that bus she wasn't able to provide what's the point of when she was cleaving to the immigration judge regarding those charges she she disputed that one charge and she knows the date she entered she just can't prove it and then the testimony that she presented in no way proved her date of entry which  the immigration charges left not knowing what to believe she can find that particular individual to be not credible therefore we would also assert your honour's that the petitioner in this case has failed to race or playing for protection against torture actually border in her briefs so that issue regarding review by th court has been effectively waived and we would also argue that the immigration judge is diverse credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence the record and the record evidence does not compel the test the fact that the petitioner testified credibly and therefore if the court has no further questions we would argue that the petition for review should be go to the heart of the matter in this particular case the attacks the judge never even examined whether or not they happened and the matter of what was said on the actual of the threat was on the first or second time the family did leave somalia hours after the second attack because they took the threats seriously and she was seven years old and she did not understand the language they were speaking was translated through her mother as to the brain and whether she received medical care and i was an issue of whether the mother chose to spend whatever little resource that she had left waiting for an opportunity to protect her daughter and she decided at that point that she could no longer protect her from female genital mutilation to send her all the way tonight state half a world away we're going the bus trip across the united states which again has nothing to do with her actual claims there is no point of her lying about that and i complete my thought on this yes the reason that she still clearly remembers her date of entry was because she was in the united states less than one week when the terrorist attacks occurred in new york city if she had come in one day earlier september fourth she wouldn't eligible for temporary protected status or any other day prior to that time and point in time she had absolutely no incentive to say that she came in on september fifth to restrict any other form of legal status obtained in the united states if she had been able to say that she came in one day earlier