somalia he's a muslim who practices soup ism some mystical spiritual and ritualistic type of islam it's a minority religion where he comes from in somalia and being soupy is extremely dangerous in somalia because of the presence of al shabaab an affiliate of al qaida a jihad as militia group that imposes its own interpretation of radical islam by way of violence on somalians generally and on minority religious groups it's violent well funded and it's good at what it does which is terrorize amassed money subjugate and require fealty and it terrorizes families like mister obvious because of their religious beliefs this drug he's also a member of the gar clan a small minority clan where he comes from it's subjected to violence from the majority of our get here clown clan now there's no dispute that there's a higher risk of terrorist in clan violence in somalia and that that's why spread but this petition is not about generalized risk or generalized threats rather it's mister obvious petition for asylum based on violent tragic life and family altering events that he and his family went through beginning in two thousand and thirteen st in two thousand and thirteen late in the year his father was killed by the al shabaab terrorist group for being a practicing the family religion was seriously threatened thereafter by the group nearly simultaneously in following the death of as in the murder of his father mister obvious family farm was part of a long standing long running tribal land dispute with the majority have argued your clan which resulted in violence between majority clan and mister abbie's brother mister happy's brother defending himself killed one of the majority clan and after that the clan chase this was a credibility determination made by the immigration judge a credibility immigration excuse me judge the immigration judge a termination was not made by the immigration judge and on appeal that b i a presumed that only if the if the if the petitioner is found to be credible but there's not enough evidence and i correct i think you generally sit it correctly judge yes so the fact that the the fact that the that the immigration judge asked for more evidence sort of implies a favorable credibility determination as the cia determined to correct i would agree although i if i could just respond to the nd part of your question which is he never asked for more evidence he ruminated in his decision and he did ask mister abdi do you have supporting evidence one of kind of i ca why it was reasonable to expect additional corroboration you're right judge you didn't find him incredible and prada so but this is the footnote it's fundamentally unfair to require corroborating without telling  particular kinds of documents that would corroborate i mean we often have cases involving claims of torture people who have been in the hospital and the i j a says you really have to produce those hospital records on a guy get them but you've got to get them because you know you said you're in the hospital and if you were tortured that now we'll show it but here how do we how does a death certificate show that a person was shot because of their religion as opposed to as the immigration judge found because of an effort to to seal the family legend you're absolutely right judge your deputy right and what the court i think is stating is the regulation in the b i e s standard which is is required only for material facts which are central to the applicant's claim so here it turns out he was subsequently able with just the most modest amount of additional time to provide the earth and death certificates for the father but yet there's no contemporaneous account nor would it be reasonable to expect it of you know rural southern somalia terrorist violence by a group like this i  even get a desk to corrupt so a couple questions or if i could take them in order he was able to get the death certificate and it was submitted to the be a in the b i a refused to remand or assess the reason why  didn't get the death certificate but of course the panel's well familiar with the idea that you know a an applicant's testimony alone of credible here deemed credible by the be not found not credible by the i j a can be enough to support an asylum claim can you can rely on it and it was and yes he explained that he was not killed in some kind of random street fight but it was the practice of the religion the ritualistic nature the terrorist group which is a  documents somehow i don't have the letters from neighbors and i don't know what what they say but when i look at the english version of the death certificate of the petition father and brother what am i looking at the english version is that a translation yes you're looking at a translation i believe and this this was information  that the certificate the translation and the tran i think there's a certification as well and this is in the administrative record that indicates that it was done by gunshot now i don't understand but i am sent i can read it understanding judge as submitted to the b i a is yes it's a it's a document from the local governmental unit in somalia well i'm i have to tell you i'm kind of troubled by the fact that there are three or four free hand to stamps in the upper right corner of both documents and they are they are identical i mean if you put one behind the other one with a light you in there and they're identical they're at is is not what you'd call authentic but my best answer judge i have it in front of you you're looking at the administrative record and i see and recognize the multiple stamps all i could say is given the import of the document and that being kind of the only question that should be think the government might say sussed out or figured out before the immigration judge i mean that the excuse me the government hasn't contested or said that the father wasn't shot didn't die in late two thousand and thirteen and wasn't murdered and so the the i j a judge the i j a decision going back to your original question judge shakeups i immediately shows aspects of it that make them suspect documents but maybe that's a matter for the immigration judge rather than for me i'm just you know we we have accepted these submitted to the b i n n o's the said on appeal related to the brother's death i'd love for this court to take a broader role in determining this in the st instance but i've learned from my other immigration cases that the a specific instructions and you know just just and one more note i know i'm over my time you know this this he was it was without counsel it was  this idea to expect corroboration detained non english speaking no council not able to access the family was certainly heir to not give him the notice of what was needed and give them the most modest opportunity identify suffice for being there and who these arrows are you know arguably minor but i'm interested in your answer my answer judges any of them are sufficient for certainly we haven't talked about up at the mixed motive err in basically finding there was really one reason instead of considering the clan nature of the tribal dispute certainly would suffice we think th on its own would suffice and the reason i really appreciate the court's question is when the court looks at these tough asylum cases it up and says and i think this comes from your decisions when to look at the situation as a whole and i think here one thing that wasn't explored before the i g was the inner relationship of this violence in the minority religion and the minority tribe the the land long term land dispute that comes to a head after the father is of course the court has the power in appropriate cases given the evidence that we've developed to remand for consideration of all of that why he can't we read the i'm i'm extend your time and perhaps wear you out but what white can we assume based on the findings that were made by the immigration judge that this dispute over the land was longstanding and that the difference in religious affiliation was of longstanding maybe in generations and that and that what what provoked the threat to your or the end of the threat to your client was the  the act of his brother in in killing one of the people trying to take their land and that is what the i j a found and the timing would seem what what caused the the the threat judge i'm happy to go as long as you want it's great to be in front of the court again what the error there and the reason you think that the i j a erred is this was not a call it air quotes land dispute it was a tribal land dispute and so the violence occurs coming to the head of this majority clan trying to take the land for clan based reasons for domination based reasons on this smaller clan social group and so i think the answer and that's that's the epitome of the decision in the shire up by judge cooler in yourself about the mix motive you can't push to the side evidence in the record unrebutted that shows that there's a mixed motive it's not the central reason it's a one central reason or or contributing to it the government may it please the court my name is geoffrey hall and i'm arguing on behalf of the respondent in this case while the petitioner challenges the decisions to deny him relief as a refugee he does not challenge that the evidence was fissioned to deny him relief rather his challenges are based solely on the idea that the board and the immigration judge spight issuing lengthy opinions still did not show that they understood the standards well enough to satisfy reasonably expected and necessary but was missing and without a good explanation similarly in evaluating the petitioners claim persecution from poverty or the immigration judge laid out the proper standard of whether his minority cla is in a context of eleven dollars triad a seeking to drive another tribe out of its its dominant territory your honor that's correct it is in that sort of general context but the immigration judge was very careful he didn't say that that necessarily meant that everything or that he didn't conclude totally that had nothing to do with the klan status he simply found on that for the land dispute itself that was not passed persecution and then he addressed the only thing that could possibly qualify as past st persecution or create a well founded fear of persecution here which was the threat against petitioners life and immigration judgment  the evidence and then never was found that the most real motivation that there was no motivation to go after the petitioner based on his claim status was based on retaliation for the loss of the individual's life  and i think it's also important to say that there's a difference between sort of causation here proximate cause is always a difficult issue in figuring out you know what's the book for causing everything but that's not what you need to decide it's really just motivation and all of the evidence shows that the real motivation and really the only motivation here in any substantial way was that these two people that came after him were the sons of the slain individual they were seeking originally just his brother's life and then went after the family only because they wanted to pressure that brother to come out i don't i don't i didn't see that the people who came after him with the sons of the man who was killed your honor that it's pretty clear from the record so if you go back to the  i'm not sure i know i wear what i look to find that shirt in two places one in the record itself i'm sort self he explains that when he encountered the two individuals on the road with his donkey that they said you killed our father and then ran after him so clearly it's the son's there and then in a credible fear interview where he describes it more like the sort of individuals that came looking for him in the village and went to his house and everything he said that the two or three times those came it was the two individuals and that they again said that your brother killed our father we're going to kill you ok thanks so yes yes your honor so i think that it that it's very clear that we're talking about the two family members of the slain individual oral decision from the judge he laid out the central motivating factor analysis and then in his decision he said that there was the alleged into the claim his attempt in a visit upon respondent is not premised on the respondents minority claim membership but rather the violent deaths suffered by one of harbored your klan members so he's saying that he's not saying that it can't be two things but he's saying that it's not if actually it's not it's one thing and not the other that doesn't show that he doesn't appreciate that there isn't a potential for mixed motives in all the cases the petitioner sites where the court found that the immigration judge didn't partly consider it not only was the case that you just didn't get the you know the standard but also that the evidence was very clear that the persecutors that were seeking the person's life or or coming after them and basically said to the persecuted party hey we're coming after you because of your  protected status in addition to the other thing that we're worried about or that we want to do for and so if in those cases it was very clear that there was that potential and then the immigration judge just entirely ignored it and said immigration judge made a favorable credibility rolling yes you are and that seems to me likely because the immigration judge asked for corroboration which if you didn't believe the person in the st place collaboration in particular about that i'm he was killed on his porch on his you know the front step of his house i think the evidence shows but there the problem was not that the problem was that all of the specifics were missing about testimony was very nonspecific in general he didn't remember press multiple times in both his credible fear interview and before the court he couldn't remember even the month much less the date of his father's death but he had the rest of the dates deficiencies that you describe have not withstanding the lack of preparation really and in the mind one of cases at least that we see i think you are expecting to have those credibility summation and there is no one here and that's entirely appropriate under the real i d act is it correct that we require from the i j immigration some explanation of the deficiency in other honor i think that the kiss all suggest that that is certainly important for the immigration judged too but you also have to look at cases like lou where none of that happened and nevertheless the this court still affirmed the ruling because  it really is it said it is petitioners burden to put forward evidence that would be reasonably expected to corroborate his testimony and here the immigration judge did far more than that  pointedly about the lack of the death certificate it gave an implausible explanation and then in his oral ruling he explained why it was unreasonable for the petitioner not to have corroborating and he remained eight months in his native country of somalia yes your honor so he remained in the country he had a to opportunity documents there he was in contact with his family while he was in angola and could certainly have ten documents there so there was plenty of opportunity and he just didn't do so let me ask you this the these documents these that death certificates have the originals been filed your honor i if i report all correctly from the record the original death certificate but not its translation for the father was filed before the board of immigration appeals of course the petitioner didn't explain why he was not able to get it before and it was certainly prepared english is not one of the most frequently spoken languages yes i think there is a larger prefer this still just apropos somalia or broadly speaking it is it your contention that the so mali government has any significant power in those areas where it is in control in other words you know there's a question  it isn't on acquiescence to persecution although there's a question with a catholic but it that's not an issue with the persecution i'm on but i would say this also acquiescence is a very high standard it's not merely sort of can't control it but that knows about  something happening knows that he has a duty to do something and simply doesn't do it and i don't think there's anything on the record that they you know there would be persecution from al shabaab in this case knew about it  and didn't do anything i can petition didn't warrant the police that they would come after his father i don't think anybody knew in advance they would come after his father and after he left the house there was no more trouble trouble f yes but he did it in a way that is insufficient under the under the fisa law to make any difference to his court he did it before the board of immigration appeals didn't explain why it it was previously unavailable that is absolutely  required there is no case law that says that the board of immigration appeals should have accepted it at that point so he has no basis to claim and now he's filing other things in this court and they are i mean but you you do appreciate that it is an resources and the and the and the wherewithal to collect this material i mean if if and i'm not sure this i'm not sure the condition is satisfied if these parts of the petitioner story and it's a father was killed his brother was killed in the approximate dates and it's sort of unappealing to say that that that since he got it after the hearing then in circumstances in which the the immigration judge failed to make any credibility finding and and  basically that he wasn't going to be getting anything additional before the immigration judge and that's where he should have explained the immigration judge also explained why you should have been able to gather this information before you left ice there that's unassailable the conclusions and the really it's it again if you have to find it at any reasonable fact finder would come be compelled to conclude to the ups and i appreciate that up on when he went up on appeal he did get these documents but again he didn't explain why i couldn't get them he got the month in three months even though he was detained for six months and he didn't have immigration counsel at that point and he had tried to get them before he left  he or did not have counsel it's not at that point no your honor now so again she was able to do something that he said he couldn't do the immigration judge was under no obligation to assume that he could do is something that he said he wouldn't be able to do or hope that you know if given more time that you would get it and at that point is that the case was closed he can move to reopen with the deficient petition he hasn't moved at it's my understanding to reopen again based on the new information before this court which he could potentially try to do but i also want to be just if i can address the new evidence just very briefly on her plans it doesn't necessarily corroborate his story so she said that he couldn't remember the date were the month of that of his father's death occurring but according to the death certificate it was november th which was the day before december and we know from his other testimony that his brother killed the man in early december because the result among the lapsed before he couldn't remember it and i think that really does call into question what he was trying to say and then the new the other new evidence from the neighbors for instance gives it did it as december th at that point it would have been after his brother killed the man which throws the timeline completely apart and also if his brother really has been killed by hubbard year then according to the record there is no reason to expect that they would come  said please start exactly where i think you and thank you judge those are all decisions and wild speculation with all due respect to the timeline of events and i and i don't think it's accurate of either what the i did not make any finding or assessment about the lack of corroborative documents just said there there is no corroboration the i j a did so with his own wild speculation this is the idea decision at seventy eight cents that he had problems with the claim because more family members were murdered that the mother wasn't murdered that the brothers weren't murdered this is not the kind of record decision that with all due respect to the government that the court should consider  affirming judge was no it wasn't wasn't there also a finding that family members of continue to live there i think on the far unmolested the family members did not all immediately  plea my point though judge is the whole family doesn't have to be wiped out for there to be a valid asylum claim and that's and that is certainly true but if if if other family members like your your client continued to live there and molested that would be persuasive evidence could be persuasive evidence that that that your your client faces  no harm if you don't think it could be some evidence i grant you that judge the i j a though found because of the lack of corroboration that there wasn't even a death proven and so the analysis is more basic with regard to what the i j a did he never gave him a chance he never said in the hearing before or the prior appearance here's what the cropper a sham expecting or never told him in the hearing you just asked him his explanation why didn't have anything the i j a did not find the explanation implausible and if i hear the government argue its case i hear it say two things that support supposedly affirming by the way we do not we do argue that the evidence was perfectly sufficient for their finding that the asylum should have been granted in our great grief of five we explain that but that the date of the father's death he wasn't sure of it and that his explanation was it seems suny extinguishes explicitly the possibility of the next or eliminates the possibility of next move i think judge and you put your finger on the legal there he applied fit eight i git a ten to be based on is not and is these definitive statements that are inconsistent with the credible testimony of mister abbey and so that's the legal air in all those other cases judge coolers decision in the shire are the exact same thing happened judge there are these conclusive decision ins that this is not a mixed case that the central reason was a non asylum type type of action and those were all of a case it's i think you put your finger on the legal there if i can say one more thing judge with regard to the cat claim there's plenty of evidence in the record and by the way in corroborate the country conditions report and the religious  going to the police and to report the violence with regard to the majority clan and the response is what member what clan are you in what member of a clan are human that's the exact kind of chaos that prevails in somalia today was case thank you