on this so don't take this as a that i've made that i've decided but if you do not prevail on the aggravated felony issue are we left with the focusing on the cro kind of make sure i understand the framework with respect to your crime writing evidence claims there's the issue of whether i'm going to use this term advance notice of the need for cry very evidence is required and there's the issue of whether there was a finding of an availability availability or on availability on that nd point it is that they do process claim that you're making the nd corroborating evidence point you are neither of those  help me with this i am i don't really understand fully why that issue is implicated here in this i j hearing the i j a did tell your client i'm looking for this  corroboration your client did not ask for an opt for a continuance and an opportunity to provide that evidence instead your client offered up an explanation on the record for why the evidence was unavailable to him and so it seems there's that footnote in red footnote twelve where they say look at the petitioners given notice and instead of asking for time to produce the evidence simply chooses to explain the absence there is no continuation there is no need for this process what you get is a determination by the i j a on whether the explanation is sufficient so i'm not it seems to me that even under wren we'd be back in the same place we are in this case which is what went wrong is there was no explanation given by the i j a for why for whether or not that evidence was reasonably available so i don't understand how sort of this circuit split or these larger questions which seem to be mostly about if upon receiving notice you say not i can't get that evidence but rather i will need a couple of weeks to pull it together whether you are entitled to a continuance or not which is what ren thinks or whether that's a matter of i j discretion which is what the v a things access to the internet certainly he she not at some in some and horton and difficult restrictions on his ability to get information and they would have been at play even with notice that  so but i'm still trying to if i got you on that i understand your point they are but if you're right it goes back that there's a determination that either that there's corroborating evidence  is unavailable in which case i would think that means you did you can't meet your burden of proof or d it is available and argue it and i'm trying to get the implications of either way that you is your point that if it's available you should get time to go get it kind of dovetailing back into the st issue or is your point that is unavailable you know it's not the petitioners fault and you somehow have a lower burden of proof i don't understand the consequences really one way or the other margret i think they've congress is struggling with a tension between statutory provisions and regulatory provisions that make clear that credible testimony  be sufficient to support a claim that the absence of security since corroborative evidence is not fatal but at the same time the judge may want to require a little more and asked and the outcome of that if the judge thinks more evidence should have been a question is one thing that flows from it that in this case it looks like the i j a sort of held it against the petitioner in terms of credibility that there was not corroborating evidence the i j a basically said i don't believe your account of what's going on because if that were true there would be x corroborating evidence and we don't have that so i would have thought that one of the consequences of a finding that the evidence is not reasonably available is that the i j a that can't do that and circumstances of the deficit council help help me with something because i'm trying to figure out p c four b it requires a finding but it seems like to me there are two different ways that an immigration judge could make that finding this provision only applies as a threshold matter where there is otherwise credible testimony yesterday and if there's otherwise credible testimony there needs to be a finding that it doesn't have it and it's reasonably attainable and an opportunity to provide some words would it be sufficient for a immigration judge to say on the crucial point here i find the testimony is not credible and therefore this entire provision c four b is inapplicable that i only get to the secondary consideration about reasonably obtaining the evidence if i find otherwise credible testimony that supports the claim so in our efforts and i say i find your testimony is not credible therefore i don't even look at c four b or i find it credible and then i make a determination to see for b but the threshold determination it seems to me is whether there is otherwise credible yet but go back so out i'm interested in what the i j a was required to do this is just a statutory right and you're saying i j was required to make a finding that the evidence wasn't available i read the the i j a here made a finding not credible and that finding is sufficient to move any other discussions about c four be right that mean c four b is simply in applicable across the a is finding the testimony not credible but at least partly on the ground that it's not corroborated so then i'm trying to figure out like i just feel like we're in a weird so viral can a do that in your view if the what would happen if an i j said i don't find your testimony credible so i don't need to make a finding i don't need to go on to make any further findings this provision is gone but that right then you can go further and require it but it doesn't limit the i j a as determination of credibility to certain factors right and maybe you'd have a due process argument but you would not have a rating evidence and much of that is because the border didn't adopt all of the immigration judges finding corroboration and if you look at the judge's decision she talks a lot about the stuff he did  why is all that stuff that happened at one swell a quake to a probability that you will be tortured and i'd like to remain in court that torture the definition of torture requires a  what the local board saying is that their business just doesn't show that because you testified it you believe now when you get back to tanzania you might have a chance to be involved in this political party and then if you elevate yourself to some sort of prominence you my ape be subject to some storms treatment not as this plane in the worth and that's just as a matter of burden of proof too speculative and the only piece of c rating evidence that was overlooking the more mention was this letter from his father was the immigration judge noted the at the end of the hearings immigration judge says is there anything else you'd like to add and this one  based on the the the board's decision and that the speculative nature of the testimony even if you corroborate even if corroborated would not have prejudice in your view i've sat and i'm not again i want to you can explain more about that i'm just trying to figure out the chain of analysis here and so  i'm kind of go to the same questions we were asking your colleague a nd ago you know putting aside the st issue of whether advance notice is required you know if there is no finding availability and what that does that does that matter here is it because as judge richardson said if there's no not otherwise credible testimony we don't even go to corroborating evidence or do you think we're supposed to go to corroborate ing evidence there was a mistake and there's no issue they are just kind of walk us through don't go straight to prejudice walk us through the analysis supposed to work and i understand the argument that in a hypothetical situation where the i j a just says look i don't believe a word you're saying it there is no need to make any finding about whether or not corroborating evidence would have been reasonably available but it does i guess i have i have questions about whether we can look at this statutory scheme where as your colleague was pointing out congress was really aware that sometimes corroborating evidence simply would not be available and that i g s had to be sensitive to that whether it would be ok for a hypothetical i j to say i don't believe you in part because what you're saying is not  corroborated their score i'm finding you not credible and now we don't have to worry about whether that corroboration would have been reasonably available and they were not that seems sort of inconsistent to me with kind of congress is obvious emphasis on the fact that look sometimes corroborating evidence will not be reasonably available to him again and i g s have to take that into account support or specifics of your claim not just country conditions unless it's not available yet so you must explain so so i would agree that the next credibility findings like the judge is just kind of i'm sure right i kind of believe your testimony because the country condition as it is so important that this might happen to somebody but i don't believe you that it's more likely than not to happen as you so i think kind the conversation with a partner now was never raised until the last minute of the hearing he never made this claim in his application or in his declarations of the application so this kind of cop just by surprise and it just says where's this letter amount i've done this twice it's not because i don't appreciate your prejudice argue about just think under stand that and there's parts i don't understand so you can in the hypothetical yes save the day for the petitioner and and the judge makes a finding that it that testimony is unavailable b requires the judge to st find your credible before c four b takes any role now i mean to me see just i'm just pure statute right but the statute only applies where the judge finds you otherwise credible right and this is back to your colleague's point to the extent we want to sort of evaluating legislative history they are concerned about in this scenario the instance where and i just listen i believe you right but you know i think i need something more like i just want to see what else is there right but it's right it requires that st part is that i believe you otherwise we're not in c four b land or we're not in what i guess is the rd or th sentence of c for b c for b as a number of sentences but we're not in c fo the sentence whatever in the world it is right thank you i hate really is just there's some cases where the judge doesn't have enough to render an explicit adverse credibility finding there's we're just not incidents four of c four b if if the judge doesn't know if he can't find the testimony credible he just don't know that may well be the case and he's got to figure out a way to resolve that but he doesn't do it through persuasive refer specific facts and then it comes back and says if you find the credible evidence then you know then then the court then that's where the cooperation part comes in so then i would agree that you will not of left parsing this i j decision to try to figure out like did the what did the i g do here was there a credibility finding rendered independent of the absence of corroborating evidence was there like a  krupp credibility determination the b i thought not but we might not be bound by that but it's just really hard to figure out what was going on in this i j hearing and i don't want to cast any aspersions on the i j a it actually looks to me just sort relative based on anecdotal information i think the i j paid a lot of attention to this case and was careful and it was a you know a thorough hearing but it is very hard to figure out what happened and i guess one thing i would take away is it be really helpful if the i did it all the necessary findings like check the boxes we might have a better idea of what was going on here if the i j a had been sort of i don't know i can't figure out what happened here i cannot figure out it is not clear to me in reading this transcript and that's all we really have i mean the i g is decision to buy the transcript whether we have a credibility determination that is independent of a requirement that there be corroborating evidence that's what i'm having trouble isolating in this decision do you think there is one is there a place where the i j a said i don't find or i am not finding credible i don't find you credible apart from your failure to provide corroborating evidence she did so ok she said that he was giving a mixed credibility by so she says i have no question do you just believe that you are the chair are so eager to get it so you think that that finding was independent of the failure to provide the a copy of the letter from the father you think that quite apart from that she's finding this claim incredible yes and you have traditionally and that's what immigration judges do is they make an initial credibility fight and that's the usually the st part of your decision especially in that you can decisions  corroboration or otherwise i mean is there an independence requirement i'm not i get it's a hard question to say whether the credibility of term aeration was whole the independent but do you think that you did that statu requires independence and if so where do you get independence out of the statute i don't think the statute requires independence i think that just based on you know more precedent over the a made a credibility fine you said i'm finding this incredible because you failed to provide corroborating evidence that you could not reasonably obtain that's consistent with the statute the i please go back and say i'm finding you incredible because your father's letter is not in the record i finally understand and make a finding you could not reasonably obtain that letter wasn't available to you nevertheless i think you are not credible because that letter is not in the could he put could in i j find that the testimony is not credible because it is not supported by corroborating evidence that the petitioner does not reasonably have access to and i guess i would say either of my colleagues have questions i do not very well thank you very much then we would normally come down and shake hands and say how grateful we are for your help today but instead we will have to do it remotely we are very grateful we thank