first substantial evidence did not support the board determination that mr blanco did not qualify for the relief you requested his uncontested testimony which must be taken as true showed that he had objected lee reasonable explanation of ho out of how he had a well founded fear of persecution from both the government and the gangs he's officially showed how the persecutor was house of persecutors with learned of his former military service and why they would persecute him although courts need not require additional evidence beyond credible testimony here mr blanco also submitted a number of country reports that show the state of affairs of all salvador should he be deported the country reports show that el salvador is a country where st gangs target the police who work hand in hand with the military in public peacekeeping efforts and a country where the governing political party consists is comprised of the guerrillas that mr blanco fought against when he was when he was a conscripted child soldier declarations to show the state of affairs in el salvador this was declarations to show how kings at that time were outings of the time killed former military members and also how was not a police officer but as state of the country report submitted by mr blanco with his application show that the military and the police engaged in the same peacekeeping efforts in el salvador however i have a question about what you just said it would seem to me so as this court stated in randy holder if corroboration is needed the immigration judge must give an applicant notice of the corporation that is required and an opportunity to pry and or explain why that evidence is not available before  but this is this is mr blanco's life and so it's worth and also this is a statutory requirement that the immigration judge must provide mr blanco with sufficient notice and opportunity to provide the and then the i j a wants proof of that kind of thing not in more generalized country situation that basically everybody knows you have to establish that from the beginning i'm not sure this is really immigration judge determined that mr blanco did not have a well founded fear of persecution because he showed no objective evidence that the former military members are imputed to be part of law enforcement or targeted by the gangs in that case  honor but that's why it's so a significant that the board in this case ignored the fact that there's a significant tie between the military and the police when examining mr blanco's testimony and the other information from the cuts and i also see that i'm out of time  be targeted by those same gangs just because he served in the military went through a civil war it was a long time ago a lot of people in the country participated in that civil war but he has not put forward evidence in this is it proves that he will be targeted if you were to be removed and that's a problem here in the case that he relies on the date case of i'm saying it correctly is actually before the supreme court right now  will be hearing oral argument next month but in that he's the court talks about the standard is the energy is if you have to present credible persuasive insufficient evidence in that case the petitioner testimony women were being targeted so those country reports specifically talked about the exact sorts of allegations it happened she sure was raising in this case the country reports talk about violence toward the east but they don't talk about violence people in the country from other military members are experiencing the sort and in this bin she sure had four hearings over four years and was told that you have to get evidence and anything else you've got it and i'm sorry but that's not enough so it's true that he has this subject in fear and that he thinks that if he goes back i'll be subject to persecution but the law requires him to come forward with with more evidence it's not enough for the immigration judge  great your honor for this court to grant this petition you would have to conclude that the evidence on this record compels the conclusion that you will suffer future persecution if he is if you return to the door and for all the reasons that with respect would you not agree that they have or hearings over four years more than satisfied as the new process reported again your honor in a different case called the car i sessions this court determined that after a rd hearing which took place two years after a nd hearing which took place after one year after our st hearing still that when the immigration judge there determined that the judge cannot r because the position did not bring a specific corroborating witness again that the petitioner there still was not given sufficient notice an opportunity to prove her case so the fact that four years passed between initial  kind of procedural hearings and then the master hearing and then finally only one merits hearing where the immigration judge took testimony the fact that four years pass not time doesn't preclude petitioner from his right to have sufficient notice an opportunity again and then on the other hand regarding mr blanco's provide proper testimony this court's precedents come into play here st credible testimony should be taken as true there's no dispute about the fact that the ins what the petitioner in these cases testified about facts about themselves and these testimony was taken as true because these pictures were found to be credible and mr blanco here deserves the same