police who had hired them now following shrestha the board should have examined petitioners testimony carefully and his declaration to determine if in fact and into existence he existed in his declaration he said petitioner said the hitmen admitted they were paid to kill me and the cousins a strange husband has paid people to murder also this was a petitioner for failure to include his cousin's strange husband mean in his own declaration given to police as well as the police report is in contravention of ren ren understood that admissions can happen in context of violence moments earlier petitioner had a gun held to his head and he had only narrowly escaped two attempts on his life within one month of each other lie and sent i'm sorry ly and z apply ren to cases where petitioners were not found credible where lack of corroboration as part of it was a part of an overall credibility determination and on review each of the other immigration judges reasons for adverse credibility were set aside ly also stated that no substantial weight was given to the nation as opposed to inconsistency in his declaration in his asylum application and in statements to an ice officer petitioner consistently said my cousin's is strange husband on direct testimony he merely provided an elaboration of the name of who that person was third the board attempted to insulate immigration judge decision by knowledge an impermissible speculation regarding the failure of petitioners cousin to testify however the board cannot parse out speculation from immigration a decision since he says six times it is an important detail and that the first reason mentioned by the immigration judge to as a foundation for his adverse credibility determination was that the failure of the custody of the cousin to testify but clouded or cast doubt rather on not only the cousin's case but also petitioner himself or notice no opportunity to provide this witness and law in ca also reached the same result that there can be no failure to cooperate if there is no notice given to petitioner to provide this additional evidence for the first time on the day of the merits hearing the immigration judge told petitioner that his credibility was in doubt what are we supposed to do if anything with the motion to reopen it is to say we have the  the brother in law was in fact well known we now have a statement from the sister and so on how does that help you well the the motion to reopen had been presented at the initial hearing this case for me is a fairly obvious case that the adverse credibility finding is wrong because the evidence presented in a motion to reopen entirely undercuts the substantial grounds of the i j a and the b i had so can we consider that then as we look at the motion to reopen and say just reopen go back and reconsider this case in light of what we're now seeking to present it please the court jury violent on behalf of the respondent to go to your question judge to begin with about the motion to reopen i don't believe that the motion to reopen can satisfy our i don't believe the board abuse its discretion in determining that petitioner failed to show average credibility finding is supported so the the two underlying decisions by the immigration judge we have a nexus and the nexus decision and adverse credibility decision and i think that the statement provided by the cousin actually wouldn't change the outcome if you look at it the account wouldn't change the outcome because you still unbelievable or some for some other reason you still want we will again look at five twenty six in the record cousins account of the january two thousand and seven shooting bears no relation to petitioners testified account of the two thousand and seven shooting so in fact if this evidence were before the immigration judge the everest credibility decision actually become stronger in my view so she wrote it five twenty six the in that attack the petitioner hit the gunman with a you compare that to page seven seventeen petitioner's testimony about the january two thousand two thousand and four shooting and his testimony is that he was shot that he fell down a gun withhold was had and they said now you're go and that he kicked the gunman's leg and then he fled and they fired him two very completely different stories about that shooting i think that i would actually make the average credibility decision stronger and so i don't think that even about the notoriety   what's the significance of the fact that that the petitioner is asylum application another statements although we didn't initially mention the name cobra if you did didn't he say that the shooting was caused by the husband of his constant you're out of the language in the asylum immigration judges all of a sudden he is certain that is the cousin's husband because the government told him on the day that it was the husband present and i think that's the critical mission and that's the point that we believe is substantial evidence supporting the adverse credibility determination so is the inconsistency is he said it was alleged that this was the husband but it is testimony he says it with certainty because says that's what they had meant to available we have evidence in the record that petitioner called this cousin and asked her to help him in this case and that she declined and so there's no doubt there's no evidence in the record this exists that this could have come in in the original  hearing will that me excuse the failure to present in the first eleven issue i'm not sure that helps you that is to say as i understand it at least according to what's in the record she was for some reason rightly or wrongly concerned that if she appeared just might jeopardize her own asylum application and now whether that's true or not i don't know but if you if you if we if he well but this was her application not his but if not in front of the i j a speaking only for myself i prefer the i j a have the front of him or her for all the available evidence about the case so i think in the motion to reconsider your right your honor and the fact that that that might suggest on availability but we still have this bridge's issue that even if it was admitted it conflicts and it doesn't doesn't solve the nexus issue of the case either when you see a nexus issue what are you talking about the secondary finding of the board besides adverse credibility was that there was a lack of evidence about a nexus between the harm alleged and the person in the family p s t which is the family group and the reason that there is that lack of nexus is the only concrete evidence we have that shootings against petitioner were by cabrera was attacking certain visuals was because they were acting against his financial interest and this actually comes out in the cousin's declaration and the fact that they were running a business that was in direct competition with cabrera's business and if you look at who was actually murdered petitioners excuse me the cousins father and his brother there's evidence in that back in the cousin's declaration that they were engaged in selling black market goods in a business that was directly conflicting with that i'm not sure that destroys the nexus of the family group there was always going to be a reason if somebody is after members of a family why they're doing it this one turns out to be partly financial but i think it's still because there are members of the family i think if you look at the senselessly most case your honor it's about how similarly situated family members remain in the country on harm but that undermines the family p s g argument so here we have seen yes to kill all the members of the family well your honor i think it just under i don't think that that's true but if you look at who's most similarly situated to petitioner in guatemala it's his father his mother is sister and even his son all of which remain on harm and that just undermines the argument it's on account of family and gives credence to the fact that it's on account of this economic interest and the other thing i'll say is we're viewing this through the substantial evidence lands and so if there are facts in the record the support the i just determination even if there's a competing for stories you're saying the family you can't compel the conclusion conclusion of the immigration judge was incorrect yeah but but when you're saying that are you talking about the record made judge he cited the fact that these close family members were unharmed and that substantial evidence to support is also in that record and i stand up i was just trying to figure out what you were saying when you're saying the substantial evidence in that statement you were referring to the evidence that was presented to the so in the board's denial of the motion to reopen the board impugn the credibility of petitioners cousin in saying that her declaration was unsourced and not based on firsthand knowledge and now you have the office of immigration litigations accepting it as true and citing it as an inconsistency so that would be a departure from what how the board treated that declaration also with respect to particular social group of of a family the board issued its decision or denial of the motion reopen prior to its decision in matter of m e v g a so there was no discussion about social distinction and no discussion about particularities and there was also in the denial of the motion reopen almost a tacit acceptance by the board of ineffective assistance since they immediately went to a prejudice analysis errors from the first decision or on direct appeal and that is something that this court does not allow in accordance with the board cannot subsequently cure errors from its first decision by denying a motion to reopen alleging no prejudice since and on direct appeal many items are reviewed to novo so the standard for denying a motion to reopen you get a much less stringent standard than on direct appeal and the merits of the withholding quick question that i think you could have surrendered twenty or thirty seconds there is how do you respond to the government's argument that there is a material inconsistency in what your client presented in his asylum application where he says i think that the gunman or hired by the husband of my cousin and in the trial testimony or hearing testimony where he says i know it's comparable because that's what they have men told me saying i know vs i believe there would not be that much of a logical leap not much of a difference between those two terms in both of those statements he's naming who he believes is