thank you and good afternoon may please the court my name is thomas tamil appearing on behalf of the two petitioners in this matter this is a removal case with a mother and son who applied for asylum withholding of removal and protection under the convention against torture the immigration judge denied that their applications based primarily on an address credibility determination we asserted in our brief that the out of his credibility determination was not supported by substantial evidence and did not take into account the totality of the circumstances i would like to begin with the lead petitioner in this matter the mother the immigration judge held that she lacked inconsistency i can see that is supported by the record and she later admitted that she was unsure of the dates because she wasn't there personally during the kidnapping so i don't believe that one inconsistency should render the lead petitioner to lack credibility  and that's not supported by substantial evidence also know that the immigration judge stated that she testified to a threat to her son received that was not included in any of the submissions i will know that the judge not give her an opportunity to explain whether that threats was actually omitted or whether it was distinct or not from the the threat she did testify to so i would not i would posit that that is not actual for at least the convention against torture application that they filed that the immigration judge didn't really discuss credibility in the cat's analysis but stated that the cap application was based on the petitioners generalized fear of return to one hundred and the general crime there i started my brief that there their cat obligation was in fact based on very specific incidents that occurred to both  honduras so the fact that the immigration judge didn't really discuss that in her decision we would request them a remount to get a proper analysis they're also not the sort of immigration appeals did not discuss the merits of the applications at all in their decision day they only focused on the credibility issue so that the they cannot claim if we go back to the for a moment i understood your briefing to argue a testimony so the testimony about threats and various incidents that your client offered would if vailable says for the cat claims how do you lisa that's my take on at this point how do you react to that s that there was more evidence than just the testimony we did submit i think it was the doctor's note regarding the and shooting there was a police report regarding the kidnapping of the cousin and there were other documentary evidence of all that is the testimonies out and you're left with these records how did they establish specific threats that would establish persecution here a future persecution  the minor petitioner being perceived as a witness by the the criminals that did shoot the house while he was there even though he didn't personally report the incident to the police his fear is that you know that they'll find out that he was there and could be targeted subsequently based on on him being perceived as a witness to that crime so i do believe there's other evidence other than the testimony that does set them apart from the general public in h i know the immigration judge said that it it's generalized fear just like the general public in honduras but the but there's other evidence apart from their test where that show that they have a particular rise risk as well it running short on time you want to say some time for  afternoon may it please the court this is dan a camel as for the attorney general in this case the agency properly considered the totality of the circumstances is finding that petitioners have not presented a credible claim or really the surest testimon contained inconsistency is concerning the proximity of the bribe perceived by petitioner her son because cousins kidnapping along with a drive by shooting at his grandmother's house and the timing of another cousin to learn the documentary evidence nation forgive me forgive me counsel can i get you to focus on what was bothering me if i could if i just call that out i'm not so concerned when especially when years have gone by people don't remember the precise dates that doesn't surprise me and doesn't surprise me that a mother and son you know two different witnesses would maybe call up those dates differently so it seems to me we have other documentary evidence that supports that these events happened or may be one take it as a hypothetical assuming that i find that there is other evidence that doesn't depend upon there is so much on the victim's credibility that the as to the existence of these events it seems to me more troubling when we look at the sequence of events and what whether the events motivated the actions of these claimants and that they are sorry go ahead i guess that wasn't a question so much as i just want to focus for me that is the more productive conversation absolutely and we totally agree and the government is to it's not just the they couldn't remember whether it happened in mayor it happened in march the problem is that both petition and her son for example hide his cousin's kidnapping the son testified that his cousin was released from maine kidnapped and told him that he had been kidnapped because the titian our son had not joined the gang but in was even approached for gang recruitment so that the problem is not that they're simply misremembering they said the way that they're being presented changes the lotus patience behind the kidnapping the murder as a drive by shooting which i think of various points they say was actually because they wanted to rob the petty criminal to just that wanted to rob the grandmother store and it did not was not related to any specific threats to petition our side and so that's the the crux of  government argue that's not enough well your honor there is no alternative finding made by the board the board did not adopt the i j s alternative findings on the merits they adopted the adverse credibility determination which does being targeted for other reasons that had nothing to do with the to sharing her son so i understand but i think what you're saying is the i j a also some alternative reasoning with respect to the merits of the claims that the  so is that your argument that if we affirm the adverse credibility determination that alone is sufficient to be playing certainly for asylum the withholding of removal and as we argued about cat but i wouldn't doesn't independently show more information on that and as when you look at the sequence of events the threats petitioner son are actually happened last following all the all the better things that were motivated by apparently things that have nothing to do with titian her son so they simply cannot meet their burden for kat independently just based on the documentary evidence did to be a reach that that issue is that yes they did interaction between the adverse credibility determination and a to grow that are set forth in the statute or the two components that are set forth in the statute passed persecution and taking the position that as a matter of law and adverse credibility determination defeats in the phylum withholding claim even if there were other car breaking evidence really now there are certain exceptions but in this case we have an adverse credibility determination which the board has affirmed and bad rich credibilities terminations disposes of most of the additional purview except for the cackling i just want to call your attention to the fact that i think i might want to an earlier question it because i haven't set forth a credible claim for any of those things but if this if if if let's say that the son testified credi the timing the things still happen right well as i was trying to point out it's not just that he got the timeline wrong it's the way that he tried to make his cousin's kidnapping a result of threats against him that had not even occurred yet and his cousin and his on that corporation and the police report said that his cousin was targeted because his cousin had been threatened and had so it's not just that these events happened in a different the question order it's the way the claim was presented in order to enhance their particular claim when all the documentary evidence really says that this was a chain of some credibility terminations i understand the immigration judge went on to make the alternative finding that the board did not affirm those and so they are not before a sample for the court so did a conclude because this presented the timing in a way that was untrue nothing happened there was no kidnapping there was no shooting i'm not sure that's what the agency found i think the agency found that this was not a credible plan for a lease it was not clear what happened and they had not met their burden of proof for filing the withholding as a result about adverse credibility determination and there were there were some other in application i'm looking at a r five days simply stated that the cat obligation was based on the same statements the immigration judge found to be not credible and and denied it based on that not because of the merits i'll just reiterate the b i did not address any of the merits of any of the applications in their decision i also wanted to just briefly point out that the immigration judge in her decision to be continuously stated that the inconsistency  were done seemingly on purpose to enhance the claim i want to make clear that i'm in complete disagreement with that st of all the minor petitioner never stated that the kidnappers of his cousin  threatened him because he refused to join the gang he never said that he said that he was threatened by them and that he needed to join so it's very possible that the kidnapping still took place before the threats he received directly so he never there was never any reference to the his refusal to join the gang during that kidnapping this is again this is a claim involving many many incidences and the combination of all of them is what led them to leave the order of events is secondary to