leaves the court my name is douglas nelson on behalf of the petitioner there are two reasons that we are here today first the immigration judge erred as a matter of law when he decided that the respondents claimed was not now the petitioner testified that he never made it to turkey it was his intention to go there in order to sleep persecution but it was too cold and too dangerous to take his family across the border the father thought he was coming but he never made it to that country in support of that contention the petitioner presented the father's own testimony and the father testified i thought i assumed that my son had made it to turkey the father's presumption was well founded in the fact that he knew that the petitioner went to the hole which is on the northern border of iraq next to turkey and the only reason a christian who's leaving persecution would go to the home would be to enter turkey so the father's presumption was reasonable but it was incorrect and the father even said sell that he had made a mistake when he recorded that his son was in turkey this testimony is further corroborated wrong it's important to note that the immigration judge though found that the petition was farther was a credible witness to meaning and well and under the law substantial evidence shows that the petition er never made it to turkey and that the petitioners family testified he never met the turkey and that he resumed his life in iraq and remained there for many years later until the situation became so bad that he had to leave the country what's the significance of whether he stayed in turkey or did not the immigration judge believes that if you was in turkey in one thousand nine hundred seven then everything thereafter is thrown into doubt that he went back to iraq and that he was harmed again that he was caught again in iraq and accused of being a traitor and supporting the north is all in doubt but that is directly contradicted by substantial evidence in the testimony of other sister did indeed return from the north of iraq and resume his life in iraq that is the only inconsistency with the judge relied upon in order to deny  that is not supported by substantial evidence now the second reason that the immigration judge denied asylum was because he found that the petitioner circumvent an order of the refugee procedures now in order to make this finding the judge has to presume that the petitioner knew such orderly procedures existed what we know is that the petitioner knew his father applied for refugee status while in gree that's all we know about the petitioners knowledge of orderly refugee procedures and we know that the teacher never made it to greece he couldn't go through the northern route of iraq to turkey or to greece but rather the situation became so bad in iraq had to flee through other means he obtained faulty rocky passports he took his family out of the country went from jordan to russia to cuba to all salvador all being all the while being handled by a smuggler three and by the way the judge says well he went to all these countries and he did not avail themselves of the opportunity to apply for refugee status well look at the countries that he went through russia  cuba salvador not countries that are necessarily known for protecting human rights but when the river riving one of ali he did make the attempt and he was denied entry and there was no inconsistency there impossibilities or any raids that would contradict the respondent testified to when he was denied entry into the embassy in water molecule pursue the north through mexico and he was arrested by mexican immigration officials and detained for over a month and they gave him the choice of leaving with wild no choice really they said you have to leave within thirty days obviously he could not return to iraq and he had family in the united states so the logical choice was to come to the u s border if you provide  concerned at the time or was it a concern at the time of the decision but there's two points you got in a very quickly first of all an alien kind of can qualify for a find this time despite a change in country conditions if they show that they suffered atrocious that well and that's the second point if we have to litigate that issue there are i have dozens upon dozens of articles which show that christians are being specifically targeted by muslim terrorists and so circumvented orderly refugee procedures in fact he did use orderly refuse you procedures in order to enter the united states there exists under the immigration and nationality act a procedure through which when you come to the border you announce you threat of returning to your country you are given a credible fear interview by an asylum officer who did the search determines whether your claim is credible or not and then with review to an immigration judge if it is credible if it is not credible then you are you can have a judicial review of that or you can be deported those procedures exist for a reason because our country knows that people come to our borders and request asylum and they are orderly procedures with which the judge is completely ignored in his decision also we have to look at the tally of the circumstances here under of the word press in the decision matter of houla that case states and the judge is bound by that ruling that you have to look at everything ever reason why why the alien or how the alien arrived in the united states it states that the danger of persecution should generally outweigh all but the most egregious of adverse factors what adverse factors do we have here we travels through all these countries to america was a simple matter when in fact the respondent was risking his life and his family's life in order to get here who was not a simple thing i have a minute and a half but they were found primarily because of lack of credibility to not have established a well thought if you're persecution and the reason and it's clear in the record there's more than one story there's an explanation for everything but the fact his explanation for not going to apply at the u n when he was directed to go there by the american embassy in guatemala compels the conclusion that he did not go because he didn't know about time in regards to next with your honor it should be noted that when he was accused of stealing or not delivering the mail he testified that he was that they question him about his party affiliation and they said you are a christian that doesn't exist in this case there are simply there's simply no substantial evidence to establish that this client misrepresented the facts on the contrary there are several witnesses who confirm the events that happened to him after nine hundred ninety seven and establish that he indeed was in iraq during that time and in regards to withholding of removal yes he does have that protection which if the judge a doubt of his claim he would not have granted but he was given that protection that protection is only temporary until it is safe in order to return him to iraq our claim is that he has suffered so much and so tremendously that it would be inhumane to return him under any circumstances and that's what we want litigated by the ration and that's why we want this petition granted thank you