all to figure out how you're going to do that yes your honor i'll be taking eight minutes of our time five for co counsel and two minutes for rebuttal thank you just make sure you actually do a tag off so we know four grounds the focal point being mr khan's correction of the date from april to june on the st information report located on pages two hundred and ninety three two thousand two hundred and ninety five of the record this address credibility terminated was not supported by substantial evidence for several more than trivial right because he changed the date to then line up with the time in which he left pakistan your honor we believe that actually the opposite is true actually weaken his claim because the crux of any letter in january with the shooting far more difficult to prove furthermore this was a clear change of the day was clear and obvious for anyone reading the document that the change had been made with your car never intended to mislead at the document it wasn't that obvious to me that the change in been made and so we ended up coming out of the hearing but i'm not sure agree that it was transparently obvious changes on the face of the document well your  honor mr kahn made the correction on both the original and the translation so it appeared on several documents and when asked about it for the st time because he was pro se at this hearing he was very forthright about it and ha in this case fail to consider the taliban circumstances as well as all relevant evidence in making his credibility a termination this also raises a due process issue because this court has been lobbied the martina's that in non citizens due process rights may be violated if the agency fails to consider all relevant evidence so what evidence mr cassar do you think the i j a did not consider your honor for your reference we provided the court with that with a chart of the exhibits on certifications of translations however mr khan did provide certification translations that substantially complied with the regulation which which documents what specific documents do you say were disallowed were not considered all because of the police requests to the police and the police's response and some of these though if they weren't formally admitted it does seem that they were they were in fact considered because the i j a actually goes through and discuss the fact that he was deeply involved his political party and they received threats from the m p and that may be but i guess the lead in here was that the letter hadn't been considered and it did seem that the i j a had that letter in front of him and whether or not it was in fact formal he admitted under the processes that they have there is it does there is a discussion of the letter that you're referring to and so he may not have read the letter in the way that you maybe would have preferred but it does seem that it was considered or your honor putting aside the fact that he marked for identification only several of these documents well as it pertains to the mother's letter i j was very clear that mr calm has shown to be undeserving of the benefit of the doubt as to the probative value for his mother's letter this is contrary to this court's requirement that an i g not soley cherry picked facts that favor an adverse credibility determination while undermining while ignoring facts t time actually considering them your honor i'm looking at the entire record as a whole and i'm coupling the fact that i j specifically said that he would mark these i these evidence for identification only and to make his mother bailable for cross examination at the hearing despite the fact that the i g never even inquired at the part as to the possibility that mr khan could make his mother be a little beer telephone or video conference and for the nd reason is already mentioned that mr khan has shown to be quote political opinion and that this persecution was at the hands of non state actors here a rival political party the m p party and that these members of the m p party were non state actors that the pakistani government were unable and unwilling to control i'd like to point this court to the case of cardoza fund sica where the supreme court ruled that even just a ten percent likelihood a future harm is enough for a petition or to meet his burden of establishing an objective well founded fear of future letter told us this that it is mr khan's last chance and that if he did not specifically cease his activities with his political party the p t i party that the a m p would bring consequences to him and that liability would lie on his shoulders mr khan reasonably rich perceived this letter to be a threat to his safety into his life i look at the case of closer versus ashcroft which was another pakistani case where this court ruled that threats alone can be enough for a petitioner to meet their burden for asylum claims in the context of political turmoil and politically motivated violence here that politically motivated violence and turmoil is well documented in the record on by non state actors in different parts of pakistan specifically in mr khan's province of k p in the pages it also details terrorist violence and abuse by non state actors in mr khan's province of k p furthermore on page state human rights report is that we are forgetting how do you connect that to mr time himself well i connect the report just to demonstrate the the context in which mr khan received the threatening letter that this is what was occurring in pakistan at the time that mr khan received a threatening letter from a tele and that because of this politically motivated violence and how frequent it happened in pakistan and specifically in mr khan's province that he reasonably perceive the letter to four the police said that it was not possible to provide mr khan with the assistance that he sought after receiving the threatening letter not only did the police deny the help that mr khan sought they also refused to offer him any other form of assistance or offer him any promise in time vesta gating the letter further the nd incidence of persecution occurred when mr khan's home was shot at in june of two thousand and sixteen and because of the threatening letter mr khan reasonably believed that it was members of the m p party who carried out this attack on to his home in june and i know you would you entertain a question yes on your cat clay yes what is the requirement is that you show not only that he'll be torture would be tortured by the government or with the act or with the approval of the government i don't see where in your written brief that you've met that so tell me why why should the board of the i g in a board believe that the government is going to torture him or that they're going to know about it and sit on the side and applaud well you honor i would like to argue that the government will acquiesce to the torture of mr khan because as i have stated mr khan went to the authorities not only once after receiving the letter he went again after his home was shot at  instill fear is no question there's a lot of problems yes but that's not the point give you the point that it's not a safe country but it has to be unsafe because of the government will torture or that it will know about the torture and and acquiesce else or prove so you there's got to be more then then people are being shot or political parties are against each other etc and i think that's the issue that i'd like to have you focus on ok your honor i'd like to point out that the country conditions alone can our camp be enough for a petition to meet their burden for protection under the convention against torture and that in the country conditions specifically on page three hundred and twenty nine dollars it also states that there's a culture of lawlessness in pakistan which show me where in the country conditions report it says the government we all torture or will allow torture with th applause well your honor in our brief we do cite to a place in the human rights report where it does say that there is no specific legislation against torture under pakistani law furthermore the report as i said specifically lists corruption among lower levels of police as well as as well as indicates that politically motivated violence especially by non state actors has gone unchecked by the pakistani government and that is very specifically in the pages of three hundred and twenty nine through three hundred and thirty one where it says that a culture of lawlessness has been created based on the violence of non state actors and that's the best you got at yes your honor thank you yes i do see i am running out of time if i may just conclude very quickly for the reasons discussed today and in our filing to mr khan has demonstrated that he is eligible for relief under assignment because he has demonstrated that he experienced past persecution thereby creating a rebuttable presumption that he has a well founded fear of future persecution thing here i would the tampering the document is certainly material and is credible fear interview with an asylum officer and his asylum application and on his direct testimony the petitioner in this case was adamant that he is house was shot at in june  was only until cross examination when the d h s s trial attorney noticed that docket had been tampered with only then did he reveal that he had changed the date and he admitted that on both the original and on the train slated copy it additionally said april and this is certainly material your honour's because it's the only time that anyone tried to physically harm him in his home country and it's the reason that he departed in the st place turning to the next in kansas or  identified by the immigration judge in this case the petitioner couldn't explain why when he st received a threatening letter from a political rival he went to an unnamed mayor who he was associated with and he said he had been threatened and the mayor did encourage him to go to the police the immigration judges concern however is that after the police rebuffed and said we will not provide you security he never went back to the mayor who is in charge of this city to say that the police of the city will not protect me and he had no explanation why he never brought it up again it was impossible in this case that a rank and file party worker would be on stage with a prominent member of his party and he said it was for this reason that the  targeted him for harm but then they never target the mayor who was on stage along with him he also did not explain persuasively explain why his neighbor whose home was also shot at and who accompanied him to file the police report why he never provided a letter from that person documentary evidence in this case none of it reachability to the petitioners implausible inconsistent testimony the letter from his acquaintance who was an attorney i believe doesn't mention who was trying to harm him he doesn't even mention the shooting it just says that people were threatening him with regards to the letter from the mother immigration judge purposely if that reduced weight st and foremost she wasn't available for cross examination and the immigration judge had a valid reason to give it reduced weight he'd already been caught tampering with one document and therefore he was not going to give him the benefit out with this document the remaining documents only talked about his educational background and i believe their identification documents the only other thing in the record was letter from the police declining to provide him protection or excuse me his letter was asking for protection but in that case it's undated and it doesn't even mention a threatening letter from his rival and finally with regards to the declining to consider those documents most of them are addressed in the agency's decision and with regards to the mother's letter the immigration judge did not discount that especially because it's written in english there was no reason for a certificate and finally turning to the petitioners kat claim once you set aside the discredited testimony and the discredited documents in this case all that remains is one small passage in a state department report saying that a prominent p t i politician was assassinated and there was an article that and random street violence p t i members may have been harmed by their m p rifles under this court's precedent the petitioner was required to show similarly situated persons are tortured in his home country and he hasn't done so as the panel have any other questions petitioners testimony to the point where it became implausible that he would fail to report back that he had suffered two separate attacks like in seeing mr cars now being held not to be credible because he failed to report back to his political party but unlike in seeing mr condit informs political party that he had received a threatening letter he just didn't go report back to them that the police are used to a system where it's not a question of whether he reported back to his political party it's the fact that the mayor who presumably controls the police he didn't report back to the mayor it's a little bit different you know or i said i still think that seeing the whitakers on point on this because there it was a mischaracterization of as to the personal relationship that the petition aside cooperate in evidence issue because there was a sufficient basis for a supported a substantial that supported an adverse credibility terminations however they were able to do that because the adver credibility terminations were supported by substantial evidence because they were i would add to the term and that the court had considered all relevant evidence and the taliban the circumstances of making that strange mr castillo thank you counsel both for your arguments  submitted we want to thank our souls for coming on assisting us with this case the pro bono program is excellent and working well thank you professor for your out efforts these cases we thought did need argument we were correct and we thank you and your cooperation