just made this decision to preachment application there was not in the record that said that there was there as in germany as a permanent resident another there is not turning the findings here right find him not credible but basically isolates the material parts of his claim to support her i support his avarice credibility finally singles out two in g believes that begins is not credible because in this declaration he didn't mention that he was with with the cable but this is not inconsistent because when his declaration actually says and you see this on sixty nine throughout the years as as you visited that little city on the border of turkey and iran but i did instead take i slate that claim and she's asking him well what do you mean by you knew him did you good morning again your honour's again i'm jonathan robbins here on behalf of eric holder the respondent i think it's important in this case to get a good idea of what exactly the process was that he went through during these different declarations and these and ultimately that's now before the court when he initially left iran he applied for asylum status in germany and was granted asylum status that's not just food while he was in germany he applied for asylum in the united states from germany twice there was an initial be now he does say that he was first arrested there he says there's a process that he says there was a long process of interrogation but torture is different than interrogation is mention anything about that in all of the documentation five years leading up to this case and then as you know he his in his last chance of asylum all of a sudden for the first time we get this new story about being tortured and beaten and and all of these things now logic would seem to dictate that if you were applying for asylum whether it's in germany or for the first time while you're in germany to the united states that would be one of the first things you mention is being beaten but again this doesn't come up until five years after the fact for the first time and that is a relatively sound basis for an immigration judge to say omission in your previous documentation that's all the sun coming up for the first time and that is certainly a sound basis for an adverse credibility fine now openly i don't think the court has to get to the credibility issue because i think it seems pretty clear that and then the burden which shifted yam and he had this declaration that well really i mean i may live in germany and have a silent but i get restricted hasn't i don't i have a lot of problems in terms of integration and that's the problem with center he was actually permitted to make that argument oh he was permitted to make that argument with that declaration well there in mind that the immigration judge continued the case for the final determination was made after it had to continue and they have to get a chance yes they had i think i think the time frame was three months i'd have to check the record but then they had a significant amount of time to prepare their arguments on the firmest on an issue so i mean he had a chance to present his his claim in that regard and again the presumption shifting you know all this evidence grant of asylum all the benefits that he received from the german government i know he  claims that he was substantially restricted he said he said the housing was overcrowded well if you're getting government housing it may be overcrowded that's not substantial restriction of your of your rights in germany i mean it's clear that they put him on a path for refugee status and when he came to the united his travel documentation to expire that doesn't mean that they didn't offer him permanent resettlement he allowed his travel documentation to expire and others forfeited that refugee status that's no different to the united states that you can be granted status in the united states and of forfeiting his declaration of two thousand and three he stated that the reason he was arrested in his third arrest was because he gave an aspirin to somebody that he knew and then during testimony when asked whether he knew this person and he said no i didn't mean that's that's a the fact that all of a sudden there is new allegations that are being made for the first time and the torture the not mentioning torture in all your previous asylum applications until this final one that that goes directly to the core of this claim that's a significant as it gets i mean if you're logic would dictate that if you're applying for asylum in other countries and i'm talking about prior to the claim that's before the court today wouldn't the first thing you mention be that you were beaten and tortured and you know where is there any indication of that in his documentation and that's  problem that's that is an omission that is as sound of basis for an adverse credibility finding as you can find and certainly the record doesn't compel a contrary conclusion to that you know is it plausible that he just decided not to mention an entire instance of torture and beating in his previous applications it's possible and is it but is it also possible that this new allegation of persecution is coming up in his last gasp effort to apply for asylum or he's already been denied by the united says he's arrested for protesting the closing of private christian schools as well so he detained by the army for forty five days so he started out a long long period of a persecution not just that one