a good afternoon your honors i would like to reserve for a bottle of two minutes thank you may please the court my name is jeffrey oh can i represent petition gay man from senegal senegal being gay is a crime after petitioner sexual orientation was exposed he was physically assaulted by half brothers and his mother and false siblings demanded he leave the home their hostility was becoming palpable he fled senegal eventually in the united states he filed for political asylum he did not win before the immigration judge assaulted by family and the community with the help of the police in order to avoid this danger is the drumming and to stay with his husband in the united states as he has married here he needs to overcome an adverse credibility finding and show this court that he did not have a full and fair hearing the adverse credibility fine they cannot survive this court's reviews nable scrutiny for this court's decision america he learned english while sitting and waiting for his hearing while in the attention however he was alone in america his new york cousin refused to take most of his phone calls in court the immigration judge the then on the contrary your honor the application did not include a separate written statement in support of the claim and some of the boxes on the forms somebody be in the jail helped to fill claim the judge had to on her own try to determine what was going on however the judge was also laden with a translator who was not pulling his weight the translator left a lot of statements as as mr drum a hedge shared not completely translated for example there were a few examples where he had stated who i fear back in senegal is my family because my half brothers are many all the translators said is my family with regard to a description of what's going to how so mr dromi at one point left the home and after the after an attack had been that was the question the judge didn't determine what he meant when he said i went to house so what had happened was he went to a friend's house because the only actual home that he had was his mother's home  he didn't convey because the translator didn't help and the judge didn't necessary follow up questions as she was trying to glean the testimony which a statement would have helped obviate the need to do as dip as hard as and to regards i would suggest that he had to prepare a separate written statement in fall with regard to all issues that the asylum application asked for such as did anything or did any was trying to do a good thing to be helpful here clients and now they're being faulted including through a bar complaint which is a serious allegation green against i agree with you who i filed a couple of those in my career i do that with a heavy heart i don't enjoy being a police officer or the legal system but the attorney who backs that legal assistant who the board of immigration appeals didn't acknowledge was supervised by an attorney however the point is that the attorney knows the form says statement and that attorney revealed to me and i america where is that in the transcript i don't have the page in front of me but when he's discussing after returning from the pharmacy there's a conversation that he went to house and that conversation the colloquy with the court he also indicates that he at one point with that with regard to the brothers looking for him at one point he also says i was not there he also does say i was thrown out not physically thrown up but my mother demanded that i leave the home all told these statements indicate that the judge was not following up properly with mr drummond as to where he was going he yes he did stay for a few hours but then when he went for the pain killer he used that as his opportunity to leave the home for good and although the although it's not clear we  when you go to the credible share interview statement it does also indicate that he went to our friend's home so in retrospect mr dromi might not have been thinking carefully this might have been  regard to i also think find fault with her on or with the immigration judge because she did not permit him an opportunity to narrate the whole claim in a couple of instances she she suggested to him that he essentially narrate a fortune such as take me through the day but she quickly stopped him because apparently his answer wasn't going in the direction she wanted so should he shut that narration down there was another and another incident where she allowed for narration and she shut that down too but at the end of testimony she blamed him for it she attributed the fault of not narrating to him when she was the one who stopped the narration but she had never indicated from the very beginning that you can be your attorney and narrate your claim she just in the course of proceedings given that opportunity without telling him that that's what it is  his confusion because when he had the opportunity to sit with a lawyer and think through his claim he shared because this was only the nd time in his life that he essentially shared his story once was a credible fear and once was in front of the immigration judge and additionally with regard to the judge and the government's attorney and the credible fear statement there was no provision of the statement which resulted in four discrepancies to be put in front of him with a translation and that's why we argued that the lawyer should have also done of a freedom of information act request for him however understood that she was under the attorney's supervision but because of the adverse credibility finding they refused to do anything about ineffective assistance of counsel but that that allowed to continue even if the legal aren't station program didn't have to do a freedom of information act request for him they should have said we know judge we know that the government attorneys want to cross examine you with anything that can find there's something called a credible fear witness summary not even statement i sometimes incorrectly referred to that as a statement it's a summary of his testimony they should have allowed him told him you can get this proceedings before i threw like a five hundred page motion into the record so i see my time is up  general respectfully request that the court deny these petitions for review for three reasons st substantial evidence supports the agency's adverse credibility determination nd petitioner was provided a full and fair hearing in this case and cannot show prejudice rd edition the board did not abuse its discretion in determining that mr diarmaid did not establish ineffective assistance of counsel oh turning to our st argument regarding substantial evidence supporting the agency's adverse credibility determination here the agency referred to specific and cogent examples of mr darnay is inconsistent testimony and i'd like to focus here on that score in consisten th whether petitioner received medical treatment after the beating and what kind of medical she received and if the government's contention in this case that all of these inconsistency as i just mention relate to the claim that the titian or was harmed because the asylum officer that he was beat for twenty minutes in testimony he then inflated essentially the times are the length of the beating and said that he was for one hour when i had to explain it i'm sorry what was that  that explanation is because it materially conflicted with something else at the titian are said and it's credible fear interview which was that nobody intervened during the beating so the immigration judge in rejecting that contention essentially saw that that did not square with something make that clear which materially conflicted with what he said in the credible fear interview that nobody had intervened so again it was a reasonable rejection of that explanation and again to t to the nd basis of the as the nd external inconsistency as i like to call them the name of petitioners alleged partner in senegal he stated in a credible fear interview that his alleged partner's name was o and then in testimony stated that his name was and when asked to explain this is that page eight hundred and forty two of the administrative records the petitioner essentially stated i don't have any explanation i didn't say that the credible fear interview and this case and the sort of highlight some of the other explanations petitioner has provided and stated that i didn't say that's a credible fear interviewer but here we have a credible fear interview that is there's no in in this credible fear interview that the court should not rely on there was some there was some problem with the credible fear interview petitioner was sworn under oath much like in the case of live earth as ashcroft there was a contemporary contemporaneously  confirms not only once but twice and he understood everything and then and so so to have additional explanation that you know the court shouldn't rely on the credible fear interview or there something calling that into quest government's contention here is there's absolutely nothing calling the credible fear into interviewing to question and then regarding where petitioner invited after the beating just to sort of clarify d the issue there in a credible fear interview petition the court to rely on a crime the inconsistency of the tween a credible fear interview and petitioners testimony here and then finally whether petitioner received medical treatment after the beating and the credible fear interview petitioner stated that he received treatment at a hospital for two days and then in testimony he stated no actually i went to a pharmacy and only got over the counter treatment and while this is not me it may not seem like a material inconsistency because it's not  fallacious of the harm right he was saying st that he went to a hospital and then he went to a pharmacy so let's seems to be some sort of if you will deflate i'm not exactly sure how do they that deflation or lowering are here the question of whether or not the titian or went to the pharmacy is immaterial to the to the claim of why he left because the titian or alleges that when he was in that pharmacy he allegedly saw one of his brothers who came over and made a threat to him concerns about the ineffective assistance of counsel claim and just some of the points made earlier about ineffective assistance of counsel it's the government's contention here that there was no ineffective assistance of counsel for three reasons st and to the argument that even assuming that they were which it's the government's contention that they're not because this does not fall within their expressed duty the message is not there they're only limited and narrow in duties which contain four different office the legal assistance programs of the executive office for immigration reveal and again they have a strict contract under which they only provide for duties which is a group of orientation and individual orientation a self help workshop sure absolutely and that was started where i was that's a good springboard into the remainder of my response and response question and while that in any event the petition the agency didn't rely on any of the inconsistency views that were between the asylum application and petitioners testimony and the adverse credibility determination in fact the immigration judge at the beginning of her proceedings recognizing that the tissue was pro se and the st twenty pages of the transcript going through the application sort of line by line question by question and then at a certain point in the record and off of the record this is that administrative record page seven ninety nine dollars and says ok now i'm looking at the application and and i'm going to go off the record  break and then we're going to come back and i'm going to flesh out a rest of its application with you so to that point of course that ineffective assistance of counsel prejudiced must be shown and that just is simply not here in this case that there is also no prejudice in this case which of course the petitioner must show that a better interpretation would have made a difference a difference in the outcome of the hearing which we cannot show here petitioner points the five different  point i can use i can use sort of speak to that the immigration judges rejection of that was reason of all given that the petitioner essentially was asking the immigration judge to accept the proposition that mr without having previously called an individual over the phone while he was in fear for his life and in flight brad dollars his belongings conspicuously that i see that i'm running over time me i continue to answer the question and i don't think  right and petitioner's testimony it is pretty clear that basically what he did was at least initially his testimony was he called the merchant if i was going by his interpretation he called out to him with the guns in hand exchange to go and receive the money back and this of course would require would have required the petitioner to be in the streets of senegal while he is afraid for his life allegedly with very conspicuously with all of these things  on a on a lark and a merchant would have accepted his goods in return and exchanged the money for them so the immigration judges rejection of that explanation was reasonable but that your honor they can see treatment in his statement to the board which could have considered any discussion with regard to any prior adverse credibility as one last attempt to try to explain any errors he indicated that there was a clinic attached to that pharmacy and that could account for why there's some overlap between not necessarily pharmacy but clinic and hospital and additionally with regard to  that's a very choppy summary though however that he was given the opportunity to look at this credible fear summary before testimony began as room and the name of the boyfriend and as pronounced matar job still it doesn't sound anything like all the billy g so and there's just no accounting for how such a word would have gotten in there and