whether or not it's the failure of the petitioner to produce her son in the immigration court was fatal to her petition immigration court determined that she didn't granted asylum in two thousand and five i believe two thousand and six went on for a number of years i mean the there were shootings into the residence where the daughter in law and his or kid in lived the daughter in law was kidnapped raped tortured beaten and as a result of the but really the the central issue is the  brother should testify or that she was going to be held or the song testify or already or she was going to be held accountable for the lack of provision testimony she was given notice that she should produce whatever evidence was available to her but the evidence was was not what happened with with the sun you know six years previous because he wasn't there he he did not witness any of the persecution of the wife mean and the court made a point the image of immigration judge said well the initial judge in the daughter in law was case was concerned with the whereabouts of of arcadia at that time that wasn't an issue now i mean clearly he was here he was granted resident status at the time could she have produced him i mean she should have perhaps i mean i'll concede that he was here he wouldn't testify so what are you saying obligation in regard to notice is well i would think also not only that not only the notice requirements but also the timing of the notice and that is does the notice that in fact she is to call another corroborating witness happened after she testifies in which her credibility is then being assessed or can an earlier notice that she should call relevant place or we talking about what actually happened to her and that clearly she was given notice throughout that she would have to produce some corroboration or or what have you and this went on for a breeding evidence was in fact the daughter in law that ultimately died from her injuries that she suffered in armenia but the issue was the the persecution of the  petitioner not i mean i think there was in dispute about what happened to the daughter in law the progression was whether or not not a spouse prosecution of the petitioner happened and that was the the need for corroboration not just that she could bootstrap herself onto the persecution that happened to the to the daughter in law but that her own persecution had to be corroborated and in the immigration judge relied on on the son but the son wasn't there he couldn't corroborate anything he could say oh yeah you know i was gone for six years but you know i think she was beat me and i was told us oftentimes family members are able to corroborate conversations that were held to be guarded what was happening at the time we don't know because the son didn't testify so we would only be speculating but it's not unusual for family members to be called to corroborate events at which they were not present and i would agree with that going back to your owner's question about notice and and the timing of notice and what type of notice should have been given it there was no that notice was given earlier on way before i was before i was actually transferred to las vegas that's correct with some notice the perhaps the birth of the son would be irrelevant with this together with the daughter who died right but there was no statement was there a lesson i'm totally incorrect there was no statement by any i g a i j a including the first one or then the second one in which the i j a said you have to call this particular person because it's relevant to credibility analysis of the petitioner was there did anyone ever say either you call this person or else  i'm going to rule against you because you haven't corroborated your testimony and your credibility is at issue wasn't that all of this run versus holder right wasn't this all ignored it was ignored i mean she wasn't given notice that she would have to produce him you know and in fact i think that the last notice was you'll have to produce you know some type of corroborating evidence if it's available to you but nothing was ever said as to what that might be and prior cases seem to indicate that if the petitioner testifies and the immigration judge is so concerned with credibility that they would say well you know i think you need to bring someone else in or if it's available i mean they've given you said isn't there i don't run versus holder is there an obligation that when in fact the i j a is really considering issues of credibility has some questions about the petitions credibility after petitioner as testified that the i j then says this is the kind of evidence i need this is the person you have to call you're on notice that unless you call that person or provide that testimony that the fact that you failed to do that would be used against you isn't that what brown versus i will require i believe that's correct your i mean my question is to what extent did the i j a in this particular case comply with that by circuit there was no compliance and there was nothing that said you know bring in nothing at all it was all after the fact oh you know we've heard this testimony that was you know thank you very much any closing argument no not really you know i'll take it under submission all right my decision and that was the end of it so i mean how so if we agree with you what is that and grant the petition what would you envision happening as a result of the petition being granted while at the very least i would think that it would be remained to back to the to the immigration court i mean if they need to credibility and they need that testimony was  good morning please the court my name's kate alabama and i'm here representing the government today i think i should just start with judge sesson line of questioning regarding notice because because that's key i by the way so i think that the key piece of evidence in the record here goes back to two thousand and twelve the colloquy between the i j and los angeles and petitioners counsel the attorney for the government for ice at that point said suggested that the government really needed to hear from the son because the son was at the center of the asylum application in her application she claims it's her status as his mother that was the cause of her persecution or at least one of them so the i j a says he's sort of the center of the operative facts here and the attorney for petitioner says the problem is that he lives in las vegas so we're not sure we can produce him and the i j a says ok we're going to transfer venue so that the son can testify and quote i do believe that the son is a key witness that's two thousand and twelve go forward to the two thousand and fourteen merits hearing it is fair to say that by two thousand and twelve the petitioner have testified and there had been no determination as to whether the petitioner was credible or not credible that's true that's true i want to i want you to look at two thousand and fourteen though in light of ren runs he and i will direct you please to footnote twelve and ran where the court says we require notice and there has to be a proper sequencing but it is not necessarily case that you need two hearings and they admit the court admits of the possibility that in a situation where the alien with petitioner comes forward at the merits hearing and says i cannot produce evidence evidence x i can't produce this piece of corroboration it's not available to me that that might constitute there might be notice in that instance they may not need a separate hearing you use the word sequencing so what right do you think sequencing means in the room versus holder so i think that the ninth circuit the court hasn't gone as far and that we shouldn't go as far to say that sequencin requires two hearings and in this instance the sequencing is they looked at the asylum that they look at the asylum application in all of these calendar hearings they look at the wealth of evidence they haven't heard her testimony yet need to hear from the sun doesn't sequencing mean that petitioner first has to testify and there has to be a determination by the idea that there is some credibility issue that's  that's what sequencing means under rent doesn't it i just that they actually assess that push the issue of credibility and then to respond to the issue of credibility once she has testified then you talk about what evidence specifically you need to corroborate isn't that what brown says i'll concede to your honor that rand could say that it but it hasn't said it didn't say it specifically and the footnote suggests otherwise because i if if that's the case if sequencing requires that you hear the testimony and make a determination as to credibility first then you do necessarily need to hearings and i think it's specifically contemplated second hearing assuming the son is with her at the hearing in the first place i'm not so sure it necessarily requires two separate hearings but i always thought the sequencing from rand suggest that you have to make first a quick determination  credibility is at issue and then second identified to the petitioner exactly what corroboration you need i think that may be true and i don't think it is true i don't i hope we don't go in that direction that would extend ren in a way that it hasn't been looking at the case law and i'm not sure that this is the right case to do that because it seems to me that she was put on notice and that the  a psychologist which basically said that this son is suffering from depression from the death of his mother of his wife it's utter and it really is unable to testify in the federal case and the question is whether or not the i j a ma determination that that was in it in adequate excuse as to not to call him is that that's correct your honor and i think that it's really important to separate out analytically issue two from issue one issue two is whether or not it was reasonable for this second i j in las vegas to conclude that based on that letter based on that piece of evidence that it was reasonable for the i j a to conclude that that she could not produce that piece of corroboration so let's assume that she had proper notice and then the question is is it was it reasonable now it's important to know at the outset that's under the substantial evidence  doctrine and it's the i j a who looked at the letter who looked at the circumstances who looked at the totality and judged you know what based on this letter i don't think that's enough you  letter was from a psychologist and it did say he was he had p t s d but it there was no affidavit offered in lieu of the letter and the letter didn't have a timeframe it didn't say perhaps at some point future point he might be able to testify can can you tell me did the i g ever say that the i g actually make an assessment as to the adequacy of that particular letter and say this is essentially inadequate before then ultimately making determination that that was not justified i think that the i did i just did not point to those specific facts except for he said i don't think it's reasonable in light of the evidence all of the evidence that the sun can't either testify or that you didn't ask for a continuance for him to testify later or ask for a continuance for some further corroboration during the course of would have to double check i i'm not sure in the context of the merits hearing whether or not the i j a said that and i'm also not sure why it would be necessarily relevant given that she's already come forward the letter saying he can't testify or put it but if she's on notice that in fact if you don't call him your son then i'm going to hold out against you in it it's going to have bearing on my determination of your credibility will now but he ever said that to her she could very well have then responded by trying to persuade her song obviously the testify i thought the record never indicated that the i j a said anything to her about how the i j a was going to assess failure to call the song but i think you may be well know i think that you make a great point the problem here is it's very easy to conflate the two issues of notice and whether or not it was reasonable but here is what i don't understand this doesn't make a lot of sense to me if the if she was on notice that she had to provide corroboration in the form of her son and they went to las vegas and she puts  letter that she can't testify why would she do this i'm sorry i don't follow i would she argue that you can't testify because she's been put on notice that everybody wants to hear is testimony so she has been put on notice that she's going to lose if she doesn't provide this testimony why would she then say yes because she's been put on notice that that testimony is considered critical and petitioner's counsel is saying we understand that you think it's critical but he simply can't come he can't he can't testify she does and i think with the i j a problem was the las vegas i did his problem was well i then asked for a continuance so supply some other corroboration you just can't produce a letter understand the only thing i would do is to circle back to my earlier point that she's on notice that it's important that it's vital she's on notice because otherwise they wouldn't have transferred the venue to las vegas that was what was there an adverse credibility determination ever made by the there was not your honor and that's part of the problem here is that if the i j never made an adverse credibility determination how was she on notice that corroboration was required and if that's the way that it works then we are requiring a two step process of a hearing to judge credibility with the either adverse or positive credibility finding and then a second hearing all no that's not true because the burst credibility determination could have told her i don't i don't believe you or i don't know what to believe in this case therefore corroboration is required in so that would have been easy  the fairness to her putting her on notice is that what she needs for her right i understand i think i just reiterate that i think that there are separate issues that she was put on notice and then the question is is it reasonable for the i to determine problem if she hadn't testified yet when she was told that the that the agency considered the son's testimony to be central to her that was way before she testified and then there was no indication given to her that her testimony was in any way less than credible i understand your honor with my remaining time i do want to make you over here time here in the red but this valentine's day i would like to point out that if if you disagree with me on the point of notice and the reasonability regarding the i just the charm nation that saying that record it would need to be further developed in the i j would have to make a determination on both the level of harm that she suffered whether it constitutes persecution and whether it was on account of a patrik protected ground thank you count thank you so much for a bottle thank you deny an application for relief based upon a failure to present corroboration if the respondent wasn't provided sufficient notice you talk about rian yes or will this risk from this was this is the judge  ball in this case yes saying or if the respondent is left guessing to guess concerning what corroboration the judge was looking for and that's the problem here we don't know and then the other point point i'd like to testimony was central to her client but your response to that it's it's not all that clear that that was central to the claim or that or that that was the position of the immigration judge the point on  one of the things i would like to point out is you know we keep going back to this was moved to las vegas to accommodate the sun that's not the case it was moved to las vegas to accommodate the daughter in law who subsequently died between the transfer of the kids from los angeles to las vegas that the thought was there as well this is a well they were all in las vegas all at the time and mainly because of the family right here right i mean so it wasn't it wasn't specifically to have our katie testify or to be convenient for him i mean at the time the venue was changed the daughter in law was living granted she had you know two children to take care of and you know all indications were he were going to give her time to you know be able to testify she would clearly was suffering from what happened sooner and ultimately she died as a result i don't think there can be any more compelling evidence than death in this particular instance and then i'll submit your