withers activities in peru amounted to material support for a terrorist organization which would subject him to bars to his applications for asylum and restriction on removal and also what does the word material mean in the context of those bars to relief are there any levels of collaboration with a terrorist which might not be regarded as material is that your on the adverse credibility determination is a relates to withholding yes and i think we have the same as it relates to convention and on and terror but  guess my worry was nobody it didn't seem like you ever challenge the credibility determination all you ever did in the lower if you will education was argue that the testimony is consistent with a low level of involvement well he was involved i mean if you're not a challenging the credibility determination then it is no question that i cannot substantial evidence board's so i mean i can argue i can find that you might make an argument about it but there are two or three times when there were adverse credibility determination made that has substantial evidence to support them so at that point if i don't have credibility determination on your client's side then i have to go to the material support issue really isn't material support board's adverse credibility determination was not correct the actual facts are really not as to far as what he did are not in question ok he is what he did was he  being used to the benefit of the program people and he stayed with that organization which which provided social services he taught classes he was on he was a math tutor for more than ten years now he did nothing that was not consistent with and there are other leftist students also in this part of what they did was they had political discussions and you know everything painting the slogans and ask him how much were part of his activities  doesn't matter whether it was also part of something else i mean if the boy scouts go out and paint slogans in favor of isis that still in favor of isis it has nothing to do with the you know being in the boy scouts doesn't protect you so i guess i don't understand the point of saying that it was consistent with his other activities there was no mention of sendero luminoso in anything that he did neither on the pamphlets nor what he painted like most of the vast majority  individual whose associations he credits were blames for bringing him into these activities in the activity that the pamphlet in the spray painting was done at the behest of an individual and that individual he knew was spouting even more leftist sentiments than he adopted for himself and had tried to take over his classes and he knew that they were people like this guy were trying to take over the organization that you've referred to and he was aware of this and there's conflicting evidence of when he became aware of it but he knew that this was something different from his own approach of the past ten years was only it was more strident more militant but most loney join that his organization he didn't joints and there are a looming also doesn't that matter but you know he came into a catholic church where everyone is welcome most only can state his positions he thought that he was more radical but so what it is there's no crime in being radical in what he painted did nothing regarding some darling also most people agreed with what he wrote  mean what are we to make of the evidence in the record that mr alvarez knew that did he make if he were not to flee the next step for him would be training  of the positions of the organization that it's conceivable that there would be a politician in the united states who gets an unsolicited and perhaps embarrassing endorsement from an organization which would be widely considered to be either an extremist or different matter but he said no pamphlets and anyway he wants to boycott the election you know he can he can be a convergence they can be in agreement up to a certain point but that then they split and he's not condoning violence he never  f not made to the be a must i remand so they can address it because well they don't address it well we didn't mention the there are did you address it i mean they didn't address it in their decision and so activity if you could but but the ok they also always always argue that it didn't reached levels that would be required for let me go one from missouri will support me go one further you if you don't disagree that communications are activities that can give material support right under the statute yes agree with that right why would limit the community in the communication activities one could engage in what would limited well communications are activities that are in material support what limits the communication activities because what you're suggesting is i agree communications are something that's put material support but i don't think what my client did was enough so what do you have that limits that what we've already gone through that counselor you agree that that list contains communications they are activities that are material in support right and now you say the ones my client did are not even th communications is dead set in the statute so then i said words again is authority for the fact that he can take these communications and move my office i i didn't find any the declaration filed supports the fact he i understand your good argument i want some authority give me some authority so that i can take that communications and i can lay it down not all communications only this type of communications only this level of communications i couldn't find that authority and then when i looked at the declaration there is no question he painted signs there's no question he distributed pamphlets those seem to be dead set in the middle of communication which is material support but he has to be knowingly giving material support to a terrorist organization and what he was supporting was his catholic youth group but that's  only joined and he says in his record that he participated just like any other member he he was welcome in there is long as he was going to go by their rules work for their organization i thought they're trying to flip it and he's i think we're conflating two separate questions if i understand it smith question it's what's the authority for saying that the nature of the activities he was engaged  were outside the statutory coverage because they weren't material number one even though they were communications number two and that's the question you move to what did he know about the purpose or the end for the intended a fact of the communications when he agreed to do the well and i think there's two separate questions one goes to his knowledge and the other goes to what he was doing as for the painting  signs which he did also did with another member of the of the catholic group those were prior to my zoning stating that he was there let me know that there's some conflicting evidence in the record on that isn't he said he was told he was a member of the shining path when he received the pamphlets and he went ahead and gave them out anyway so that's and he even so even under his own testimony but in gauges well that activity when he was engag louisiana we had an election between a former klan klux klan leader and a person who was convicted of criminal things and and i believe was george h bush said well it's a it's a terrible choice but vote for the sebastian she was credible but there was no past persecution so sure all of her all of her application stands on future persecution it does and as i understand it the three threats that you're talking about are about the future persecution if those aren't enough under our case law to suggest there is future persecution then you lose well she would be going back yeah but she would be going back associated with someone who they're saying is associated with it all right now the issue is i'm trying to put this again in perspective to what the law is when i look at sebastian it seems to me that reading everything about what she says is the threat of future persecution everything that she has in there if i read it all i don't think that it would compel to those cases where i have found future persecution and in fact in those cases where i haven't found future persecution there well within those cases those if you will those three circumstances so i'm having a tough time with that given to please the court my name is paul stone ever present respondent attorney general the united states the critical issue in this case is mr choice credibility ultimately that's the core issue and the only issue the court really needs to consider because if he's not credible he can't privilege ability for asylum withholding of removal or even cat protection and he certainly can't prove that the material support bar does not apply to him was in the shining path at least as early as when he passed on them he also said that he suspected he was a member shining path before that but then he later said that he didn't find out he was in the shining path until three days before he left and there's a number of other inconsistencies in this testimony but what it it what it adds up to is that he can't carry his burden to show that the material support part doesn't apply to him so the briefly on for being aware knowing that he was assisting a terrorist organization applied and that that also illustrates why his credibility is so important is because  bar doesn't apply because he has that burden if you can't provide credible testimony then he can prove that it was in fact a minor we don't know for sure what he actually did you know if you look back to his asylum interview he said he was much more involved than he ever testified to the immigration judge of the board and rely on that because the asylum officer didn't testify but that's the that's the implication of an adverse credibility finding is we we just don't know and that's that's the problem we run into well but if we have an adverse credibility finding it seems to me then we give no credibility to why certain facts happen but in this particular instance there's no question that painting on the painting appen and there's no question that handing out pamphlets happened is that enough to meet communication i think it is he handed somebody a glass of water we have to make a legal determination whether that constitutes material support regardless of credibility one way i think you're that goes back to earlier in the analysis which i didn't talk bars they are required to make that showing in every case so there's a regulation the attorney general put out that says if the end to keep it in its indicates a bar may apply the alien has the burden to show promising evidence that it does not so the question would then be what there's evidence in the record indicating that part may apply and as i said that wasn't raised in the opening brief and it's never been in dispute that there is some evidence of that and it's a low threshold meaning it doesn't have to show that you know that it absolutely does apply otherwise it would shift the burden back to the government which is not the intent of the regulation so there's evidence here that he  knowingly assisted sendero luminoso the shining path that he did things that they're being asked in particular communication passing out these pamphlets whether or not that actually rises to the level of material support is not an issue at that initial stage that that becomes then the issue when the alien has the burden to prove that it does not it's your argument that in response to judge smith's good question about whether we need to re mand to the b ira to get a ruling their ruling on the men was this material support issue is your response that because the credibility finding was adverse and there's no evidence to compel a contrary conclusion we need not remain and that's correct your honor well also it sounds like you're arguing that the conclusion that he failed to carry his burden of having objective subjectively subjective fear of future persecution of others having objective lee reasonable fear of first profusion persecution sorry the immigration judge here found that she had established the subjective she subjectively was is afraid of her trying but an objective person in her position where they've had three encounters with people she doesn't know who they are who haven't actually threatened to harm her or hurt her just want to know her husband is does not would not give an objective would not give us an objective lea reasonable fear future persecution our briefs largely some of the rest of our arguments i'm happy to answer any more questions otherwise i would just sum up that in the end this case really comes down to credibility mr choice testimony is great deal of evidence the government has and the elite is trying to say look wild to refute that in this case it's only his testimony so his testimony regarding what he did as far as putting up the pamphlets and i mean how pamphlets and painting the slogan on the wall that is credible no one is saying that he didn't do those things so if you're going to remand it to to say whether it does this amount to material support then that is an issue that could be reviewed even if other aspects of his testimony were not deemed to be credible because that's it and not all not all credibility issues are fatal to a claim this is not under the real i d act that this is application proceeds that it was something that would have to go to the very heart of this claim and