good morning then walk into the th circuit we've got a full calendar today we'll call the cases in the order that they appear on the calendar and without further ado will call carranza versus a bar of counsel for that case is ready good morning may please the court my name is irving is also the counsel representing the petitioner this case is based on an adverse credibility finding by the i j a of a pro se litigant who was in custody at the time immigration appeals dismissed that appeal saying that the judge was correct in her finding of adverse credibility we believe that that was an improper finding in this case now the standard for review here is for substantial evidence but that doesn't give an immigration judge doesn't give the board of immigration appeals a blank check to insulate themselves as to whether or not the respondent in this case petitioner here was in fact credible or not it's for sure however the if we get right down to it your client talked about these particular claims a credible fear hearing but then didn't put the info in the asylum application and didn't testify about it at all until he was asked about it several times and then confronted with the events is that true that is true your honor well so then if that's the truth how do you differentiate this case from jane why differentiate from jing for various reasons st of all in the jane case your honor he was represented yet jane was represented by counsel so james counsel after asking jing on four occasions at least as to did anything else happen to you and this event in the event that they were talking about was a custody a vent this come on aren't you going to tell me about this now i didn't say it that way but prompted several times and confronted several times and nothing that would not seem like it was a big deal to your client what didn't the reason again it's also different i believe is if we look at what the i j a said at the master hearing on july th which is the appellate record page ninety four specifically lines five to six when my client is handed the asylum application to fill in in the hand in the job specifically said and i quote the officer will give you the application for asylum the form i five hundred and eighty nine complete the form as best as possible the judge never said it had to be detail the judge never said anything this is a pro se litigant yet the judge after that went on to say in detail about the attachments that had to be put on the application if there were any how they needed to be translated into the english  i j pointed out that no one filled out the prepare portion of the form that is correct judge and he explained he this is a gentleman that was in custody was not represented had someone that he spoke to that he told what had happened to him fill out an application for him didn't have a translator during any of this he had a translator at the court judge i don't know that he had a translator because that wasn't in the record in the custody facility where he in fact spoke to someone is you have a problem understanding that because i was confused by the record where he seemed to understand a fair bit about what was happening but then this kind of came in with an excuse about well i'm not sure if i really understood your directions well he  doesn't understand english there was a translator in the court your honor the court always provides a translator and there was a translator well but its language oh so he doesn't understand english he doesn't judge in fact ok at the very beginning of the proceedings the very st time that he appeared before judge you know it was asked he was there with a group of i believe ten other individuals and each one was asked do you understand english do you need the services and of an interpreter the petitioner here in said that he needed the service as an interpreter now to go back to what you were saying yes that is correct nobody signed the application but the judge also must realize that if this gentleman needs an interpreter this gentleman doesn't speak english how does an asylum application how does a statement attacks that asylum application all of a sudden appear in the english language he couldn't write it so somebody obviously did help him she made a lot of this in trying to show that there was adverse credibility again by saying well here's a closer look is saying was here's what i have in front of me we have some of vents which were supposed to have happened they said he the client absolutely said that it happened at the credible fear hearing but now when we get to the info in the when we get to the testimony the petitioner doesn't say anything doesn't say anything until i have to prompt the petitioner several times and then i have to confront the petitioner about the events and even then not very much to the petitioner say and then we go the application and he says and you're and petitioner says somebody help me but then there's nothing there that says anybody helped and then they say well list seems like a big credibility finding with judge and so therefore i say to myself why isn't jane right on i don't believe it is i believe late which happened about l consequences for rd parties not the petitioner himself so lay is not on point lays about another of other parties right on point is jang about the party now it was only one circumstance in jang no it's three or four here which is three or four circumstance in which he testified even as you say upon prodding but upon being asked by the i j a or the government he testified and if we look at what he testified to before the asylum officer and his credible fear interview where he in fact was found credible each and every one of the events was spoken about each and every one of the events was spoken about in the same fashion there's been cour of a credible and credible fear application hearing and say one thing then it gets to the asylum application it's supposed to be a big deal but never say anything about it then go to the hearing again supposed to be a big deal and never say anything about it until prompted three or four times and yet it compels me to say that the i j and the b i a were wrong that's what you're asking yes i am a made a lot to do about he not having one of the instances was about being sexually abused by his brother being abused by his brother the i j a went into that and said i don't buy what you're saying i don't buy the fact that you're embarrassed by it but yet if we look at the testimony that he give the asylum officer that testimony specifically says that the petitioner asked the asylum officer is this confidential is anybody else going to know about this this is something that i feel like  i send to the i j a looks at discrepancies that there may possibly be or omissions when it comes to the asylum officers findings yet in something like this she just circumstantially says that that's that's not a problem i believe you're lying because you should have told us that same thing with the incident with the boys when he was ten years old or younger than that your honor he didn't testify about it initially because nothing happen except for being put in that circle and told to commit certain sexual acts with these young boys but nothing ever happened of it but he did detail it to the asylum officer and again every time that the judge pressed him and i'm and i pressed him but it was a pro se litigant he testified everything was truthful everything was the same exact testimony that he gave his asylum interview as the one that he gave at the time i was just going to say your time is almost up good morning your honor is may it please the court i'm carmel morgan on behalf of the respondent the u s attorney general we ask that you deny the petition for review because substantial evidence does support the agency's adverse credibility determination the agency in this case relied on three omission and this court has said repeatedly that omissions can form the basis a valid basis for an adverse credibility determine the counsel don't those emissions have to be relevant  referenced that that that had happened to him that the that there was he said my misunderstanding this that this was in the asylum applications as being a gay gentleman in my country is very difficult to establish wife with freedom dignity and honor we suffer homophobic attack discrimination turn to hate crime to violence and killing with that we cannot get any relief or help from the police as my and then he goes on to say as myself suffered during the time i was living in mexico isn't that enough to suggest that he suggested that he had been raped by police officers no your honor it's not that asks for detail he provides no details well there's not a date there's not a buy there's not a where there's not a what is that what's required if you don't include a date or who did well he doesn't clue who he says he happened by police officers you're saying the us doesn't know the name of the police officers who raped him no no no i don't think he says anything happened to him because of police officers he's speaking only very generally about country conditions in mexico the only thing he says that specific at all is as myself suffered but he that that refers to i don't know what well why doesn't why when you assume that that refers to the extortion rape and assault of  i guess it goes to what kind of what kind of reliance we need to give to these individuals who by all accounts apparently he didn't even speak english at all he comes in with this preparation or the statement that he's prepared he writes this down what's our standard in reviewing that it seems to me we should be fairly gracious in looking at whether somebody made that statement in their application we review it if it's such a dramatic and pivotal event as this rate would seem to be i don't think it's unreasonable to expect him to mention it in the asylum application nor would it be on a reasonable to expect what happened to him in mexico and why he was afraid and then i'm just looking at what he's out she's asked the judge asked him and is there any other reason that you do not want to return to mexico and says because i was right for the police and six times before that he was asked about problems in mexico and i have twice before that he said that's it he didn't have any other problems that could have stopped the hearing there when he said that's it he didn't have other problems so he was asked you must think he made this he made this whole incident incident even though he said this to the silent officer at the very st contact do i think that asylum application that mentions no specific incidents at all and when you ask at the hearing about problems this information is not quickly forthcoming i think it does raise credibility concern because the sumption is that he has made up that and even though he said this to the asylum officer from the get go and i guess at the hearing he's now having trouble reconstructing his you know he's made up tales that the  i think what the i j a is saying here is that she asked repeatedly about problems in mexico and this was not mentioned until it was raised by the immigration judge herself there is no  no reason given why that explanation is wrong or why it's not true why it's not available i think the implication is because it wasn't mentioned when he was just moved on so he was never given an opportunity to explain supposed mission at all that's how i read the record well i thought his explanation was that he didn't mention it because he didn't consider it i guess a threat or a significant but even to accurate isn't it i mean nothing nothing was done i mean if there's no context was a day when it could have been traumatic to a kid but nothing was actually ever done that way under the deferential standard of review even if you don't rely on that one particular omission though the government's position is that the other omissions are strong understand that it just seems like there's problems with each of them and real and and so i'm wondering why we would know what how to weigh how do we approach that do i say no i've got to discount that when he comes back with something that seems very credible for what he might not imagine i think it could be construed as reasonable i think the i j a also could construe it as she did where he did reveal that information to the asylum officer and he did to her discuss some other very personal events regarding sexual abuse by the police officers and so she felt if he was willing to discuss those with the asylum officer and with her earlier it didn't make sense to her that excuse but again it's whether the record compels the conclusion that he's credible there and even discounting that as i said initially i think this is the strongest omission is the one where he didn't discuss the rape an issue in his testimony and left it out ron very quickly just to summarize is this i j particularly told this person prepare this asylum application as best as possible and that's what he did he prepare an asylum application as best as he possibly could judge nelson to answer your question as to what happened with the asylum officer that exchange specifically which is at the appellate record page thirty petition provides even though my family now accepts me but i have never told anybody about this but i feel like i am suffering from some mortal sin but my oldest brother would abuse me but he would tell me that was normal is this confidential he asked the officer the asylum officer says yes it is and then he says again yes he would abuse me but he is now dead the judge didn't take that into consideration anywhere in her ruling in the decision appeals and this is i think very important because this is one of the most important reasons that they are saying that he is not credible witness thank you very much kids just argued is submit