court to proceed to the second case islam versus lynch asylum officer denied their application for it which time in two thousand and six with the assistance of counsel petitioners provided supplemental documents and corroborating evidence in support of their asylum claim at that time immigration judge then of course here in the immigration court in chicago referred the case back to the asylum office second time or actually the first time but the second time they had appeared in front of an asylum officer the parties again appeared interviewed and their keys was referred for a second time back to the immigration court at which time they proceeded to a merits hearing before a judge then a core the original application was filed before the pre real i d act took place and the supplemental documents were filed after two thousand and six the judge applied at the pre or the i'm sorry the real i d act even though the original application was before and the second part was after in this case brush and islam as father was an internationally known fulbright scholar and mr islam testified extensively about his father's arrest which in the early days during the liberation wars in bangladesh in one thousand nine hundred ninety one and this is what spurred his interest in politics as a result mr became heavily involved in what's known as the bangladesh awami party it transfers from english to the people's league he joined the sleet and became heavily involved with demonstrations political activities and speaking out against the opposing party the bangladeshi national party in this decision or in this case mr islam and his wife testified fairly extensively about the incidence of persecution that he suffered which spanned for a period of over almost twenty years the problem in this decision is that the judge reached an adverse credibility finding and determined that the petitioner lacked credibility because of purported inconsistency between his original application and his testimony now your honor as i stood before the square just a couple of weeks ago with an asylum case and me the same argument she although that case was different it was about particular social groups and this is about an adverse credibility finding the same argument i believe applies in that mr islam was not not changing his story he was supplementing has story as we all know but yeah but the approximately ten lines of text as a new immigrant into the country who barely speaks english it's very difficult to decipher exactly what should be written mr as detailed his fear of returning the best that he could in that block maintaining of course that he or considering of course that he still had fear at the time he was filling out the application and his english was not the best he did detail his basic fear and of course during the course of you know a several hour hour merits hearing before the judge much more detail is going to come forth and at that time he was able to elaborate he took the time to think through all of the persecution to explain that he you know there was a little bit of inconsistency about and confusion about what he told the lawyer and what he did not tell the warrior and his mind and i think he made this this clear during his testimony he told the first a lawyer about the extensive persecution now did he provide every single detail we don't believe that he did and he did provide that to the judge during testimony and i see that my time i sure so and summary we would just argue that the judge didn't give him a fair chance and determining looking at the testimony and looking at the evidence we're just not sure what more the judge would want although the judge has detailed and the board has detailed a number of inconsistencies they haven't explained how those and consistencies actually go to the heart of the claim nor have they provided cogent detailed and analyzed reasons as required by  read extensively over the past week myself line and there's still severe tension between the two parties although currently the party is in power every other term it's gone back and forth and each election as detailed has been heavily criticized with severe attention there's substantial instability still there was just an as recent as january and execution of a high leader with conflict between pakistan and bangladesh oh there's ongoing  everybody to what affects everybody but mr islam and particular is concerned because of his outright relentless persecution of his relentless excuse me not persecution relentless pursuance of his beliefs as he's described he's been heavily involved and spoken out a number of times involved in demonstrations and he's had severe past persecution happened to him and so dense which he's testified involving arrests beating kicking parties even though they're in power now they just won the election they were n power and then the b n p was in power and then the alarm he was in power each term they keep switching and it's extremely extremely close between the two parties and there's extreme and stability and substantial tension still still existing so just because they're in power doesn't mean that he's safe and ok thank you  may please the car at least the damiano on behalf of the attorney general good morning to you all the only issue in this case is whether the evidence in this record compels a reasonable fact finder to determine that mr islam case as as we've been discussing mr islam first sought asylum from bangladesh in two thousand and four based solely on his father's political activities his application made no mention of any political opinion he held made no mention of any political participation nor did it make any indication that he had been mistreated two years later mr islam alleged an entirely different claim based on what he says is extensive political participation dating back to the one nine hundred eighty s after the conclusion of removal proceedings in which he was represented by counsel throughout and provided a second opportunity to present his claim before the asylum office the judge determined that islam was not credible based on material and consistencies and omissions the board agreed that the two asylum claims were inconsistent and that he failed to adequately explain the inconsistency between the two thousand and four and two thousand and six claims and based on its new review of the evidence the board also agreed that mr islam testified inconsistently in two thousand and thirteen with his twenty sorry two thousand and six declaration in many instances regarding the pivotal event of mistreatment and these instances of mistreatment are the very crux of his claim mr islam has here on early failed to show that the evidence compels a contrary finding and in fact in his opening brief to this court mr islam does not correctly articulate the standard of review which is the highly deferential substantial evidence standard he mentions the abuse of discretion standard several times and he also fails to clearly address what evidence he deems is compelling to reverse the agency's adverse credibility determination as we've been discussing the two thousand and four application merely stated that his father had faced threats and retaliation due to his longstanding supports of the awami league in bangladesh and that he feared returning because of his league there is no dispute that mr islam had the assistance of counsel when he prepared this two thousand and four application and although the application itself does contain only a small block of space it's disingenuous to say that he wasn't able to prevent to present a more robust claim because he had via the assistance of counsel when he prepared th application and he had the assistance of counsel at his asylum interview his first asylum interview in two thousand and five he could have presented and declaration or a supplemental statement just as he did in two thousand and six in two thousand and six the statement was thirteen pages long single spaced and typed detailing at least ten instances of mistreatment very detailed and many of the incidents resulted in alleged serious injury for instance beatings and in one nine hundred ninety two of in two thousand and one he went into hiding allegedly because of threats in september of the same year he was chased writes in his thirteen page declaration and when asked to explain why he didn't reveal his political activism or mistreatment in the over four application he first said that he was afraid that the instances of mistreatment would be somehow used against him in his asylum application but then during his testimony before the immigration judge he kind of wavered back and forth saying no i didn't tell my attorney at the time and finally yes i did tell my attorney and i'm not sure why he didn't include that in my two thousand and four application and that's on page one ninety five of the record mr islam is also conceded that some of his declaration is simply not true whole paragraphs of specifically detailed events simply concocted or fabricated and we don't necessarily know why or how that happened but he has conceded that some of it is untrue the events in question that were left off the zero four application are not supplemental events they make up an entirely new claim based on his own political activities and record of events yes the party switch back and forth the awami was in power from ninety six to two thousand and one and then the bangladesh nationalist party was back in power in two thousand and one however awami party won election in two thousand and eight and they have been in power ever since at the twenty thirteen hearing before the judge there was an upcoming election and mr islam testified that there was an election coming up in october and thirteen and that he feared that the bangladesh nationalist party would win again they actually didn't when they're still in power but that evidence is not in the record that's just information you could find in the department of state the current department of state human rights reports on line the board also agreed that the with the judge that there were several inconsistency between his testimony and his declaration including the of detention for his second arrest in two thousand and four and like i said the omission of all of these other instances of beatings that he went into hiding that his best friend was allegedly murdered that he was chased by armed terrorists all of these incidents were left out of his twenty thirteen testimony and notably in mr islams opening brief to this court he doesn't address any of those and consistency is the only one he addresses is one that was not relied on by the board  medical clinic inconsistency the board specifically declined to rely on that inconsistency and stated so in its footnote five on page four so the fact that mr islam has failed to address these specific and consistencies shows that he can't possibly show the evidence compels the contrary finding when he's failed to address the very inconsistency is relied on by the agency who hasn't been there for sixteen years from mr islam yes he hasn't been there since two thousand and four and that was the second time he entered he entered in two thousand and three in june and he returned to testified at his hearing that there were still threats coming to his father every so often even until twenty thirteen however the judge found that he wasn't credible so we don't credit those this is father still living and nothing has happened to his parents or his family and all of the time that he's been in the united states despite the fact that he himself says his father is a well known intellectual and influential party member in the awami party nothing's happened to his family and although he says that there were still threats coming through because he doesn't really meaningfully address the substantial evidence standard of review we believe that the substantial evidence supports the agency's finding that he he provided inconsistent accounts and inconsistent testimony as to why he was seeking asylum and he hasn't