three critical errors in denying petitioners request for asylum in withholding of rental and adverse credibility determination and alternate finding of no past persecution and alternate finding of no future persecution none of these findings is supported by substantial evidence and therefore this court must reverse i would like to address each in turn with respect to the adverse credibility determination of the immigration judge first began by focusing on florence you know her name is ortiz's misrepresentations with respect to leaving the united states and being detained by the border patrol and for sake of avoiding confusion i will refer to the back the petitioners by their first names throughout the argument the finding with respect to florentino has lied to the immigration judge the life of the immigration judge is not condoning will it is not excusable but that is not the test of this court of flies to determining  petitioners suffered in this case i mean it's clear the family suffered some it's clear that they couldn't go out and play when they were seven and eight and there was a general concern but not their family but they personally what personal harm does the record reflect at no point do they say they were completely without food but it was clear that they lacked substance the food was getting less and less all they had was food from prior years harvest by the time that they fled according to their  let's say hypothetically there were one hundred people in that village does that mean every one of those people in the village would be eligible for what your clients are seeking by virtue of the fact that the government troops horrendous though it may have been made it impossible for these folks to farm does that is that what it takes to meet the burden that the petitioner has to meet here two things your honor first with respect to the fact that there were  multiple other villagers subject to the same persecution i do believe that that can form a basis of finding of past persecution in the garcia hernandez case the whole village was subject to persecution and the court found that that bolstered a claim that everyone in that village was had an imputed sympathy to the guerrillas and that the military was in fact targeting entire village and therefore it's likely  all of the villagers were suffering and therefore that was persecution in this case and the second point i wanted to make was that petitioners have more than just the fact that they were deprived of food as were the other villagers the testimony is that their here your clients have to allege a personal personal suffering or injury and the fact that the father and the brother had these chances are you arguing that that is what that is their personal claim no that i think although the government talks about the fact it was the parents who kept them in their house the fact that they were essentially hidden for three to four months while the military was occupying and they were hidden because the parents had a legitimate fear of that the petitioner's may be conscripted into the civil patrol and so the us seven and eight and seven and not that was the reason that the parents kept them and being conscripted into the civil patrol units and that the parents feared that other young boys and this was the reason they were hit and would also be conscripted i don't know if it doesn't appear that there was some kind of criteria that the that the military was using to conscript these these young men but realistically counsel i got i mean these are heart rending stories and i want you to know that i'm very empathetic about this but the fact is there's a burden to be proven here the issue of the food sadly about hundreds of millions of people on this earth if that were the allegation mystery to be made could become you know residents of the united states because sadly they are suffering similar defamation there's a big difference between seven and nine year old boys and thirteen year old boys thirteen year old boys you know are there they're young they're there they're masculine they've begun to fill out and in unfortunately in africa and asia and other parts of the world many times they are conscripted but seven or nine year old i have real difficulty that can you help me with these unusually big kids are they did they fill out early well why why these particular individuals why the parents fear that they would other than we have to credit the fact that the parents were were there and the parents as any parent is going to be protective of their child but it's going to look at what are the realistic dangers to their child and no one can fault the parent each parent does what each parent intents do i've got six children so i can empathize with that but but the fact is your client has to bear a burden you've talked about the food we again we've got a problem here in terms of bearing the burden in terms of the conscription i understand the parents made that decision whether it was a realistic concern and whether it personally affected these boys is another matter your you you and your clients have the burden to show how they personally were involved if you're talking about the brother or the uncle that's another matter because then there's testimony directly what happened give rise to a past persecution claim in the story to case it was refuted robberies and then a deprivation of the ability to earn a living and the dollar was the same type of inability to have a livelihood because of some government activity immigration judge found in her decision is that they are my own refugees and she also made a determination in her decision that she had no doubt that there was at least a great amount of discrimination in jeevan said general persecution analysis and i think that's the beginning point the recognition that these individuals and there is substantial evidence supporting these individuals claims that is returning my own refugees they will be subject to persecution but these individuals have more they do have an is not not clear the government made the argument below that it was unclear why the government was killed along with two mexican nationals along the border by the guatemalan government and the question was why  court argument you want to make it make that i do think that if all we had in the record was the fact that these were guatemalan refugees attempting to return home i do think there are consistent with this  sufficient to allege a claim of art to support a well founded fear of future persecution and i do want to make that clear your honour's but i don't think the court has to stop there and i don't think this court has to fear that somehow the precedent set well will open the doors to asylum claims by anyone who is living in a refugee camp and mexico as a result of the guatemalan civil war i think the fact that in this instance there is undisputed evidence that the father was was beaten and that the brother was beaten this makes it an individualized fear and in addition to that your honour's in this case we don't have any threats no evidence of any particular threats against your mower florentine no we have any evidence of threats against anybody parents in that immediate family there are some cousins but their record was unclear as to the the cousins had fled as well but it was unclear if the whereabouts of the cousins presently i think in addition to the fact that the brothers were i  think that you know the fact that family members are persecuted can bolster a claim and in addition to that we have the fact that the brothers in a sense have no ties to guatemala they don't have land they don't have family they don't have any means of support so unlike perhaps other returning refugees they are going to have to enter a world and where they will stick out they cannot just blend back into society they're going to have to either demand some land either back in their village where they left from some other region in guatemala they're going to have to seek some type of government assistance they cancel it again with due respect these are economic issues you're talking about difficult but but economic but there's got to be a core before you can have a of a number or emanations from the benambra and i am still troubled by the fact that there is not finding anything in the record i'm not finding anything and what you're saying that is tied directly to bees to young men yes there's economic difficulty there's economic difficulty all over guatemala and in many other parts of the world and unfortunately  our lot are fortunately or unfortunately if you look at it our law does not provide that that is a ground for asylum we need to see some particular allies particularized harm or threat of harm to these two young men and the fact that they are part of a mayan family the fact that when they were seven and nine years old their parents kept them in for fear of the military i don't see any case law i don't see anything in the statute or the regulations that would allow us to give them relief on that basis and my wrong i would argue that you're honor there is a basis in both case law and case law that would finally ask persecution based on the deprivation of food the good the individual to the individual you honor and again i the case of the dollar case are the types of cases where it's and not it's economic harm the type of deprivation can and can treat past persecution and then the fact that there were attacks on the family i think that past persecution that the rios case and the dollar case again are that demonstrate that typos of bolstering a fact when we get to the case of the well founded fear of future persecution i view it essentially as as as a wall layer by layer they're slowly getting building up a case and of more in each layer becomes more individualized you have minor refugees then you have the fact that their parents were beaten our father and  brother were beaten then more individualized the fact that these individuals have no ties to guatemala it's not a case that everyone's entitled these individuals have a well founded fear of persecution going to your times there when i want to make sure that you have time to stay i do want to ask about one matter because this information comes out of contemporaneous with their phone calls to their parents and in light of florentine his testimony there is reason to doubt here that their parents still are in the place where or where the boys lead that they are and where they claim that they got the information about commandante and i will address that you know and the reason i didn't address coming out here and this is because regardless of how this court rules on the adverse credibility issue i think the other evidence that the great judge did credit would still support the reason that the immigration judge's findings with respect to that are not substance supported by substantial evidence is the fact that first the inconsistency in date is completely explainable in  fact the judge recognized they didn't have a good recall of dates what she didn't want to recognize was that this court has repeatedly held that inconsistent season dates are not a valid basis ordinarily to find adverse credibility of works with the will find if you're ultimately coming not to hernandez was not at the heart of the claim certainly holsters are claim and if it comes then i think it more proves it even more substantially well founded fear but even without your honors they feel had the military throughout guatemala and so coming out to hernandez was mentioned in their applications i mean in their declarations and in testimony not going to say he was a non entity but he was not the basis of their claims of past this case and what happened to you to the parents i mean you don't make is completely appreciative of that and what happened in the family was horrific but again we would just emphasize that these two boys never even saw the soldiers when they entered the village bike you merril's  and maybe mexicans but she makes this difficult makes a finding that they are guatemalan mayans and so it i think that that sort of cuts against the credibility really i mean it's i think it makes it more commandante hernandez in their village back in guatemala the background documentary evidence shows illustrates that most of the fears of future persecution stemmed from the civil patrols and not from the guatemalan military in general therefore com contact with them what we know now from floor to know is rehabilitate testimony that that had to be that it could not have been correct because as of april ninety seven he went down there they were no longer in the refugee camp therefore they cannot have been told in one thousand nine hundred eight or testified that he heard it from others in the camp and then the immigration judge asked him who and he said i learned it when i talk to my family so it was pretty clear that he learned that information from the parents in the refugee camp and again again we can see that routine phone calls  made to two years ago would be difficult to remember but this is a very critical phone call this is a phone call that is the big one of the primary basis is for why they fear going back to guatemala and going back specifically to their village because this leader of the civil patrol who january of one thousand nine hundred nine we know from the brother that they weren't there as early as april of ninety seven and that is a still pretty significant gap and it does not support to why the older brother as well his claim was not credible  again and then of respect to the well founded fear future persecution yes the immigration judge did acknowledge obviously from the documentary evidence that mayans even after the ninety six peace accords still faced a degree of discrimination and even possibly general persecution but you probably found that there was not evidence that there was a pattern and practice of persecution against mine specifically most of the documentary evidence presented showed that most of the  these two got amal are from those who are human rights activists those who are investigating past abuses are iraq really involved in bringing those to light there is a lot as the records show about the country report on this issue exceptions but the primary one mentioned by their expert in their affidavit concern a different village in which a number of attorneys were killed but those who are responsible for it were being prosecuted investigations are under way for that so again  allegations of discrimination against the return here coming back from mexico but i believe it is along the lines of that their meetings are broken up and that their names are taken on a less there's no allegations of specific physical harms against hearing therefore they properly found that there was no individualized start of a fear if you time how long of these young men been in the united states they entered in one thousand nine hundred one your honor so approximately sixteen years they are now in their twenty's yes  including the fact that the family was injured and again the rios case i think addresses that point because the government did not attempt to rebut that well founded fear i believe that every man with an order of granting asylum is appropriate counsel what do we do with the government's claim that they can be