the immigration judge and a subsequent appeal after remand from this court i want to address the motion terry mann st because i believe that it will resolve a lot of problems in this case the board of immigration appeals in its nd decision said that the evidence which was submitted was cumulative and not previously available that some of it predates the  hearing of mr rebel now i know that the prior evidence which was submitted included only a two thousand and thirteen state department report and the department of homeland security's exhibit list pages for a two dollars to forty three dollars in the record and if we look at that exhibit last there's only two articles in there from two thousand and fourteen most of those articles are for many years earlier and those articles were submitted as part of the department of homeland security's failed attempt to prove that the b n p the party of mr rebel was a terrorist organization there is only one article there that post states the two thousand and fourteen election which was the cause of mr rebels problems so the evidence which was submitted cannot be cumulative they're going to be i say more than that well it said the evidence has to be evidence that was not previously available or presented at the prior hearing and response to that part of the b o h order so the respondent was pro se in the adelanto detention center it's two and a half hours from los angeles in the high desert the respondent does not speak english if we look at the asylum application that was prepared for him by a nonprofit organization that visits the detention center we can see that that application isn't very extensive and no documentation was submitted on his behalf he kept asking for continuances and he wanted a continuance the immigration judge went forward so when we say previously on a vailable i think it's very hard for him to  a good portion of the evidence is evidence which occurs just before his hearing and there is evidence to me just i want to make i want to make sure i get the sequence straight in my mind it may be not avail evidence may have been unavailable to him because he just couldn't get it but isn't all the evidence that was submitted for in conjunction with the remained application relate to things that  which talks about activists of the b n p having to protect themselves and save their lives that article was written after the hearing after the hit was published after they hear it mr like mr bell should have argued that the new evidence required a remained to the i j to consider that argument and maybe it would have had some some merit but in the absence of a specific argument them to remain the case to the i j a or to reopen i don't believe so i don't have that at my fingertips let's look at the decision and i guess i'd like to ask you if you can point me to anywhere that he thinks most beneficial to your client in the record to whatever you think that would require us to say now this compels t finding that mister rebell testified credibly because i've never viewed his testimony it seems to me that it's just very difficult to draw conclusions way one way or the other from  and if that's true i'm just struggling to figure out how how we don't give deference to the i j a ok so i will go through a list of all the credibility issues that i think the i is wrong on or the at least the most important ones because i see my time is winding down  immigration says judge says at the two thousand four hundred election since the alamy party was also elected in two thousand and eight how could it be a problem in if they were elected again in two thousand and fourteen it appears that under the parliamentary system the party was made it mr rubella because they were not able to get an electoral mandate and there is an article in the rema that you were persecuted or would be persecuted because your political beliefs it's essentially i don't i don't believe you finding out why is that not supported by substantial evidence he may have made a mistake here and there in terms of history but he basically says i don't believe it i don't believe your story don't we have no winner of you that rather charitabl uncontroverted by the i'd say it shouldn't be accorded deference and my question is a little different i'm sorry if i may misled you with it he said for example i don't think you've established to my satisfaction that you're a member of the party that you say was discriminated against you have an i don't yell established that and therefore you haven't met the st requirement for persecution can we find that to be not support and how do we how do but i have to say i have some serious concerns with the quality of representation your colleague provided this client both in the proceedings below and in the brief that was filed i realize you came on late but i'm just trying for out if you have any explanation for that particular really concerned about it because there were legitimate problems in the proceedings below that  an opportunity to explain the alleged discrepancies but none of that was rate east which is troubling i don't have an answer for that iran or all i can say is that i would be willing to consider i would do additional briefings where you do have the option i suppose of going back to the i a e a it arguing ineffective assistance of counsel and all collateral  i'm reckoning on behalf of the attorney general as an initial matter to respond to the petitioners argument that the evidence he submitted was not cumulative as an initial matter that argument was not made and the opening brief to this court and  court should deem it waived but even if it does not the argument still lacks merit because the immigration or excuse me the board of immigration appeals found that the evidence submitted for the st time on administrative appeal with cumulative of that submitted to the agency meaning that the evidence presented the same information that bangladesh does experience political violence and me ask you and i want to follow up and judge reviews question this is  records terrible the translation seems terrible but nobody attacked it i'm not sure how good the judges credibility determinations are but those don't seem to been attacked on appeal and then  he comes back with some additional evidence which may or may not be cumulative what do we do with a case like this it it's i'm less troubled by the outcome than by the process what do we do with the case that it seems to have all these m if i could as ask you because you said possible translation problems you fairy familiar with the record i'm sure do you think mr rubel received adequate translation services in the proceedings below i can't speak to the adequacy of the translation because he does not and did not point to any specific now sure you can because you've read the transcript it does seem as this court is noted difficult to follow the testimony but we can't determine on appeal whether that deal to mr rubles own lack of well it seems pretty consistent through throughout the hearing and i'm just curious can't we grant the petition on that basis on our own it's seems impossible to understand what's going on in his testimony because the translation is so bad and it's obvious from the record that the i j couldn't understand him either and the i j a says as such in in a few places in the record so all i'm also trying to figure out how can that be fair and how can that be trust appeals the petitioner could have argued to the board that there were significant translation problems and my nd response is that that is the role of the immigration judge to determine whether there seeming possibilities an inconsistency is and a lack of responsiveness are due to translation problems or in this case to credibility and the immigration judge is in the best position to make that determination and if the immigration judge and i'm not saying just completely goes off the rails and says just incredible things that are clearly not supported if that's not brought up in the you know the record is such that there's just nothing that can be done in that case the petitioner should raise those arguments to the board of immigration appeals which would then be given the opportunity to correct any possible problem with that same lawyer who let that happen below would be threat of future persecution when there's the b i reject that because they find him not correct because they're up holding the credibility finding or do they assume that he's credible and still and still rejected my reading of the decision as that they assumed that he was credible like the immigration judge dead and then rejected that and that front if there were as he claimed ten death threats or these death threats to his brother from people who said i can't we can't get you so we're going to get your brother why doesn't that establishment's a reasonable fear of future persecution i understand if you find him not credible then you don't take those into account for him having some difficulty at this nd level the assuming him to be credible why that wouldn't be substantial evidence that supported the claim of fearful future persecution might be relevant to any  the victim is told that the it's the intent of those who are threatening to do the same to somebody else that we move up an extra step perhaps around here but in this case the harm was directed at the petitioners rather who with i had a that's enough to establish a reasonable fear future persecution if it doesn't rise to the level of persecution either past or future persecution then it would still be at the same analysis that to meet the threshold to constitute persecute i guess what i'm asking is whether or not the you think the p i a s finding on that issue is independent of it's affirming of the credibility determination of the i j a yes that's my understanding your honor but notably the petitioner did not argue to the can you tell me where in rubles testimony he says they stopped calling his mobile phone because i looked at something that you argue and i looked and the best i can find something quizzical about the awami league calling him at his uncle's house but i don't see anything definitive but maybe there's something in the record that wasn't part of our record i believe on pages th the date when he went into hiding at his uncle's house so putting i still don't understand because they stopped calling his mobile phone they called him at his mother's house but that doesn't mean they stopped calling his mobile  e my understanding is that they called his mother and told her that they were not able to find the petitioner and so that they were looking for him and that they also  called him at his uncle's house  right now it seems like being called at your uncle's house doesn't mean that you received a call on your uncle's landline it could also mean that you received a call while physically present at your uncle's house correct your honor and that the that they would call me over the phone and selling that we know where you are and we are going to come and attack you even kill you there and that's inconsistent with his testimony a bit they stopped calling him and that they did not know where he was and that they would call his mother asking for his whereabouts if it was the same as he testified it was the same individuals and they would call his mother asking for his whereabouts and then to still call him and tell him we know where you are is directly inconsistent where in the record i guess did give mr rule the opportunity to explain the perceived inconsistency in his testimony i don't believe the immigration judge ever point about that specific inconsistency but they're both the immigration judge and the d h s s attorney asked the petitioner about his story and asked multiple follow ups which provided him an opportunity to explain his testimony which is sufficient under this court's case lively under which case law is that because i thought the op the i j a had to give him the opportunity to use the case all that i'm most familiar with to explain the perceived inconsistency is in his testimony  correct your honor and this court has said that that opportunity may come through questioning and from questioning from the t h s attorney you know where did that happen here in this case all throughout the immigration judge and d h as attorney both asked him numerous questions to clarify points his testimony and that provides a sufficient opportunity for an explanation but in any event he never raised any argument to the board or to this court that he a sufficient opportunity to explain the inconsistency is and so this court lacks jurisdiction to consider that issue because it is not exhausted to me questions how specific does the petitioner have to be in making these kinds of requests to preserve the issue i mean for example i know in the persecution argument you said that bell had waived his argument about having a well founded fear for  future persecution because he hadn't specifically argued that as on his appeal to the b a a does he have to be that specific i mean he clearly raised the issue of past persecution how there can be waiver if the board didn't create use waiver the board the board said i want to deal with your persecution claim you didn't establish a past persecution you have an established well founded fear future persecution both because we uphold the credibility finding and even if we assumed you to be credible it wouldn't establish a well founded fear so i don't consider how we have waiver under those circumstances  concluding that unfulfilled threats to the petitioner would not constitute to past persecution i have no idea what that means and there's not have a well founded fear future persecution it's then there's two pages of pretty bad argument that follow it but it's not enough to preserve it for the us respectfully now your honor because it's not developed in any argumentation and not supported by citations to authority or the record as are quite required by rule twenty eight of the roles of appell on page twenty seven in the briefings not arguing exhaustion i think i think we clarified he said the other side said it was exhausted the question is do you the arguments in the brief to us address the issue it's at least expressed there in the well founded fear and i want to raise another issue that this court can look at even if it is under manifest injustice this court could look at these issues and remain back and at the end of the day mr rebell was a pro se applicant and  he wasn't able to get the the evidence and there's a lot of issues in the where the i'd say can makes credibility findings based on conjecture and he have a another hearing where he could be represented by counsel thank you thank you very much the case of rebel versus bar is now submitted