the gulf up to the edge of the city of houston and the distance is something like sixteen miles but cursory look at the map of the ivory coast reveals that  pedro compared to the capital is several hundred kilometers apart so it's not possible i don't think to suggest that san pedro is so close to the capital that when the capital is listed as the departure point san pedro is like a close in suburbs it's not it's a distance separate city that's true but you're defining your own there are these documents was emitted by the government the day of the hearing we know that and we know that you were given five days to provide rebuttal or commentary and i recall or nothing was provided so i don't see how you can now say well the evidence has to be ignored because it was filed with late notice there was a correct was the date was the problem right seemed to be yet whether it was a copy well but the data there's a reason for the date being different like the judge was saying that she had to talk about the  because counsel didn't complain didn't object didn't file motions prior counsel or for the immigration judge and the issue as far as i could tell of ukraine felician was not raised again by prior council at the so i'm assuming that we are going to have to treat any objection to the quality of translation as way but my question to you is this are we allowed to consider the apparent quality of the translation translation even though an objection to the translation was not properly made and therefore the issue would seem to be way is there any authority saying nevertheless we can consider  not related to no no friends it is that's not a question of let's assume that he in clearly established that he was here with any year doesn't mean that he wasn't here more than a year ago i can tell you that i've been in philadelphia for the past ten that you know something from that if you consider it a little bit surprising as you studied the record the least of my recollection is correct the judge talked a lot about the testimony of your client and the parent or possible in consistencies between and among different things he said but as far as i recall he made no discussion at all of the documents that were also in the record so for example she says we don't even know if he is who he says he is but one of the documents in the record is a parent a den of occasion card that at least to me looks official and it has so why can't she look at his face on the witness stand look at the picture and but i'm nancy craig man on behalf of the attorney general and in the interest of getting to the phillies game just the court have any questions for me i never really going to question something that troubles me on page twenty five brief for the government appears to be signed by you that's your signature yes your honor and you just signed it after writing the brief yes your honor did you proofread the brief or it was submitted for you signed it yes i did well can you explain why in the penultimate line of page ten there's reference to quote he would be tortured by the government of computer and it just gets out paragraph after paragraph and page after page that sometimes involve facts of other appeals that are utterly irrelevant to the appeal before us now they are absolutely not i apologize for my errors in proofreading but i gave this case careful consideration and must have read the record about ten times before completing this in an effort to really understand peti there are no prefabricated paragraphs at a routine you repeated from one brief to another absolutely there are your honor we we don't reinvent the standard of review and so forth for every brief and that's why sometimes mistakes are made like that i apologize because we honestly you know i care about i'm breaking the government expects every judge on every panel in every case to carefully read everything in the brief and that's not unfair unreasonable but it seems like under reciprocity counsel for the government ought to very carefully read every line in every before they ask us to so read it i create one hundred percent  conclusion is that even though the interpreter said at one point he understands me i don't know what was attributed to conclude that the seeing the real communication from the beyond that the impression i get from reading this is in as you can imagine we read a lot of these as much as you do but certain themes kind of play out as read some of these hearings in clearly some immigration hearings you get the feeling that the immigration judge was more involved in the questioning woman how did you know that it really does seem to me like the kind of question that is only logical if the person asking the question was hell bent and making certain that this person did not get the release that he as d by definition i just don't get that as judge mashal said in an earlier argument he appreciated when someone gives a reasonable answer as a reasonable person and my i thought long and hard about the record in this the most important part because we know the law that he was i understand well known it comes up over and over but let me ask you this you seem to read at least to an extent that the trouble that i j has on credibility written in relation to the head wound doesn't make much sense to make any sense and yet when you look at the b i a reviewing opinion is not only is it short not only is it one judge and not only does it hardly discuss any facts at all but the but when it does discuss facts they're limited to the alleged inadequacies in his testimony about his own head and to me it raises the question does mickey put his finger on before did the below a judge even read the record even read the rest of the i chase opinion because she is about ten grounds on credibility and the only one he selects is the one that in my opinion makes no sense at all innocence so that makes me think he might not have even read her opinion that he read the testimony that he worry about the translation that he read the documents there are a lot of documents in this case affidavits and other documents and i don't get any sense at all that the immigration judge for the board of appeals member mastered this record at all and it caused me a lot of concern  i'm a little surprised actually that it's come up the way it has today because i don't believe that the petitioners even raise that to this court to do quite right it's ok or whether we ought to worry about it and whether we're committed to worry about it would be unclear because of the way we're going but assuming for a moment that were permitted authorized the considerate along with everything else on the record it looks very worrisome to me it looks like the translation was very poor well again i'm i'm not sure how one would reach that conclusion because the issue of the translation did come up at one point near the beginning of the hearing and the translator specifically said we do understand each other we have different accents the translator stated what country he was from and said we as we all know it to be who in their right mind is going to go poking around and go ask the government i know that his family killed the other day because they were the wrong the wrong with political allegiance i don't official documents from you saying you will respectfully disagree with the conclusion you reached that the immigration judge was simply trying to support a preconceived idea that she was telling to deny really what about the appearance that i get reading the transcript that the instead of direct examination very soon we get in the cross examination by the judge of the applicant so that it looks like it's the judge against the application not the applicant's lawyer being allowed to put on that case for withholding and cat and so on it have a very bad appearance to me that the questions are coming from the wrong lawyer well i think that the questionnaire was well represented by counsel here who didn't get a full and fair opportunity to present his case  so much early questioning it's one thing if after the two lawyers are done the judge asked a lot of questions in the trial court where the direct examination of the one and only live witness is heavily dominated by the trial judge that looks pretty odd to me what do you make of it well i disagree your honor that it's on because in this case this hearing began with the immigration judge recognizing that the petitioner had opportunity to present whatever evidence and or testimony he had in fact as you recall from the record the the immigration judge at the conclusion of the testimony didn't give her oral decision that day it was a week or so later during which at which date she asked you know did you have any supplementary evidence and so for us so i don't think it's fair to say he wasn't given a full opportunity to present case which is really the bottom line that you're asking about i mean this rising literally i'm really wondering whether the immigration judge who's biased or whether we didn't have a fair trial because of an attitude on the part of the judge manifest very early in the questioning of the applicant which really turns into a cross examination being conducted by the judge was i not my the government's attorney after director's been let me try this mena work and i  but as you break just do that's it do the right thing is this the use i try to share regarding the headwinds i certainly as i said earlier has to agree that i don't understand the immigration judges conclusion on that particular point on the country report though i have to disagree that the immigration judge didn't read it or address it i think to the contrary there was discussion about the concludes that the adverse credibility finding is not a store to buy substantial evidence and the evidence compel a different result then yes that is what the court somewhat in a way answers the question because i believe in me it's a case where reasonable minds could differ on on that conclusion let me ask you this do you consider it genuinely disputed by the government the general his father were poor was assassinated along with a lot of other people did you consider generally disputed by the government  his father was killed the same day in the same neighborhood apparently by the same militia type force did you consider generally disputed by the government that the mother was killed when their house was ransacked i mean if there's no  that means anything about these kind of facts and this is the commonsense risk if we send this guy back to the ivory coast or probably get imprisoned tortured or killed or something very serious well i think there's a big leap in there and a couple of ways your honor first of all you asked about whether the government disputes that the general was killed j or gay or however one pronounces it the answer is no it's in it's in every state department report after two thousand and two so the answer is now but whether his father was who he claims he was is a whole different story altogether we couldn't no party could produce evidence that the father was the driver and even if he was whether he was killed that day i cheerfully will his it is and there's no contrary evidence and so the ruling turns totally i think on the fact finder judge mills saying well i just don't believe anything he says therefore he establishes no facts by any proof and therefore his case is zero and therefore he has to lose and in the context of this case that somehow doesn't seem quite right to me because there are so many facts that seem not to be disputed and the government's contrary evidence is essentially limited to the the departure point of the ship but it's not the government's burden your honor and theirs on ramadan are we now i know you do but i simply return to that basic persuasion but you have the burden of going forward or else the evidence that he has produced will be substantiated says by his his burden what is the government going forward to undermine the finding that was roe from his own evidence that his y adding up all the other inconsistency that the immigration judge pointed out whether you think there worthwhile significant minor or out and out wrong you know she did list on a number i was honestly the only one that strikes me as significant is the issue about his farmers the farmer he says that was a driver for the general head of state and also his father was a father was a farmer i don't know enough about the today or tomorrow but was a former a few months ago right and i couldn't speculate about that you're on a sense that's not in the records but what i can give you is refer back to you know there are inconsistencies that the immigration judge did point out she also did point out that some some of the things that the ration judge consider inconsistency is don't look to me like inconsistency is all they look like other facts but describe other parts of the picture there are other pieces of the puzzle but they're not in conflict there are just other facts that well out the picture as one person is robin cook perhaps it's better to say ill missions or use some other word rather than inconsistency one thing she pointed out was get some affidavit or or letter something from the man that he claims he lived with in san pedro for a year or even through that that's guy's not going to say a word what do you make of the aphids where he describes this ship experience where he says i thought the ship was headed for naples because something was marked naples i took enough food and water to sustain me between ivory coast and naples low and behold the ship doesn't stop it's at sea for sixteen eighteen days something like that the food runs out the water runs out i'm down in the hole and i as a there's a description of his being taken to two different hospitals to get treatment for the skin condition which is exactly what you would expect somebody who's been deprived of food and water in the dark hold of a cargo ship to have by way of physical manifestation that tells me he sure as heck was on that ship and then gratian judge has nothing about that nothing about the affidavit nothing about the details he gives nothing about the corroboration by the lady who works in city hall who took him to the hospital well i think she did refer to it you may disagree with the conclusion she came to about it because she did say well that that she was he was here in december of  make a mistake what's on the flip side is there any indication this guy's committed criminal offenses or where he's on the dole and doesn't have a job or he's created a problem in the community is four of i can surmise it's not clear but far as i that that's though you know that going back to the time of the hearing that brings up the problem of his identity and when you don't have certain identity documents you just can't establish who you are you know what about  yet a copy of of an original photo but the question is does the copy match the face of the guy on the stand of course that's correct the problem is that unless you have an original you can't give the government an granted that was you know honestly i'm clear in the record because i also marked the page where the counsel for the petitioner mr i asked one said i got the originals back so it's just not clear to