he remained in ecuador and frankly december two thousand and four when he was granted parole by the department of homeland security to enter the united states civically in this matter the immigration judge found that mystery was pretty consistent with his statement his testimony attached to my five eighty nine and as to what he claimed happened here in china however there were several issues in this case namely friendly settlement and adverse card that was valid from august two thousand and four dogs two thousand and sixteen and the certificate of census that was valid from july two thousand and four to july two thousand and five namely the government has argued that based on its documentation from the refugee board of care that that petitioners law permanent resident status is premised on a document from ecuador yet in attack the authenticity of the documents did government presents its case and the i j a has a determination to make and that's a factual determination is that it is yours and therefore i must affirm or deny the petition in this case if there's any substantial evidence right correct however and therefore if there is substantial evidence and you agree not attacking the  he moved to ecuador he received the certificate of census he really had an id card for my code or that was issued and didn't expire until two thousand and sixteen he received a ten three immigrant visa from there as an industrial investor in titling him to the right to residency there why is that not substantial evidence your hon and therefore he needs asylum in this country to file for that he did not your honor he filed for asylum from the people's republic of china so i don't not sure what fearful of returning to ecuador has to do with anything that well he was fearful of the people that agents or individuals from the people's republic of china were going to locate him and arrest him and while he was present in ecuador the the issue is for through regard to authentication is petitions continual testimony was that he didn't know anything about these documents he did not know how they were obtained he knows that his sister utilize for substantial evidence we can make that determination again all we can do say is there's substantial evidence sustain what's done you don't attack the authenticity of that and so we have to look at it has on authorized i guess authentic and then say no substantial evidence or an attorney owes a duty to their client if we were to send a document for authentication to the country of ecuador and it's found to be fraudulent or improperly obtained and he's removed to the country of ecuador we're putting petition in harm's way if he's welcome but that also would then suggest he's not from the resettled in ecuador which is the obligation that you have here and it's a two it's a two edged sword i understand but you're trying to get admission here and so it might be in your might a bit might have been in your interest to show that he was not personally resettled in ecuador by showing the docket was not legitimate however we do have to have as an identification card and what we have is a census card it's not the same documents that are referred in the government's record but again it's a question of fact accounted for and now we have to say substantial can be perfect just substantial not so much the worry i mean that's why i want to put the question to you i do see the core court's position here however in balance in this matter and balancing the men but the heart potential harm to petitioner there was no authentication done in this matter as to the document petitioners position as is that the identification card and the documents provided by the department of homeland security do not show that he's been firmly but you know look and they were conducting an investigation and the human trafficking and for some reason he was given parole so he could help identify  to new york and then we left him there it was never asked to testify or take part in any investigation and never followed up that's correct yeah so what obligation do you think arises from that or you're the department of homeland security was never able to provide any additional information as to why memorandum issued november two thousand and fourteen he submitted there this is not in the record that's two years ago no under the memorandum in two thousand fourteen you recently sought it with evidence that he had no criminal record your honor he has sought that and he would still no documentation as for his claim about this problem with his stepfather father of whatever was in the i j a said he lacked credibility because of the mother moved into another household household register would have indicated that the father was the stepfather and it didn't and so he was there for him credible correct and then he provided no documentation and it seems to mean you're twenty eight j letter you say but you needed a notice of the necessity of the corroborating information if this court finds petitioner credible they remain other grounds such as with regard to his testimony regarding a stepfather his determination of who is stepfather is right and with regard to his implausible travel plans he was unable to find that petitioner believes that he's entitled to notice an opportunity to provide the documentation under ran re well but you didn't exhaust that to the i j or the b i did you well your honor i will argue this is that i mean rand was on the books in two thousand and eleven correct her and the i js decision in this case was in june of two six specific reasons why i just managed to answer my question if you didn't corroborate if you didn't exhaust the claim you can bring it here because i can't help you it's true that the claim was not exhausted at the level petition i did ask for that it did ask for continues on two occasions during the hearing just amid a letter from his mother and the judge were declined those that something even if you didn't raises to the b i how can you raise it before us showing his who his father was his mother's marriage to fit a letter from his mother letter from a stepfather letter from a sister in a household register showing that he will reside with the village leader specifically what petition would argue that  down to two of these items he submitted his birth certificate record he did show that the gentleman might mean that he changed she was all over that's likely because he was he was born when that person was in the household when his mother was actually married to this and with regard to his mother's marriage certificate he was never on notice for that in addition to the household register showing him residing with the village leader he was only with the village leaders family from october two thousand to two november two thousand and two so it's highly unlikely that he would be registered with that family there's not an indication the records that i'm aware of that the government paid for his fights but he was given the parole document he could travel on so he's given a parole document he travel to miami and you testify that he was interviewed there in miami and the reason that he was brought to miami was sent but allowed to go to new york to have his he had relatives in new york so the question is to what exactly happened in the interview in miami i don't have details on that but that's why he was brought he was brought to miami counsel maybe the more interesting marriage case come out of china and then the firm resettlement and in ecuador was an odd story and then being paroled into the u s just seem to compound all of this story in ecuador is that somebody named grandpa chen is been manipulating all of this in ecuador israel and and he seems to suggest the grandpa chen may have manipulated this to get him into the u s as well now given the odd circumstances that is that he's paroled out of out of the consulate in ecuador the u s consulate and comes t united states is interviewed in miami and then he just he just disappears the u s has seems to have no interest in you much so whenever i don't think that's true the n c a was issued right after his parole and so it's not the case that he just went to new york and call he was in new york he was granted ninety days pro the opportunity comes united states on a trip and be paroled in exchange for information about the smuggling operation now your honor i think that what the record indicates is that he was involved in smuggling operations in ecuador is probably smuggled in that that what he was specifically told he needed to obtain corroboration and then given it to you're given a continuance which extended into two years for him to obtain that before cross examination occurred operation for  operation for what the events that happened in china and then like this trip to the united states the trip to ecuador in united states so both of those issues were mostly again about what happened in china we brought him over here and paid for did we provide for him to leave where was he saying that ecuador and i'm not over the sea i'm not aware that we paid for him to come to the united states from ecuador we provide them the document that allowed him to do so but not aware of the fact that we pay for trip to miami we just know that the u s consulate with the pearl document he could have paid for his own trip to miami he was allowed to come in as effectively of the allowed admission is the benefit that he was given in order to testify about the human trafficking and again he was pretty substantial investment ecuador so i think this kind of supports the everest credibility determination because he said he only had a couple hundred dollars when he came to ecuador but he got two very unique statuses one in ecuador in the united states yeah so with we we're doing business with him there's no evidence in the record besides incredible testimony from petitioner the graphic chen was doing with the consulate in ecuador and in fact his pictures on the parole document it hating that he went to the consulate further undermining his testimony that he's never talked to a government official a u s government official to get that document and undermining his testimony that he didn't know what this didn't know what the pearl document was or what his status was when has provided those in the form of two different id cards a census id card and then and an id card and background evidence to indicating what those id cards meant and that background of evidence suggested that r cards that we use united states to lawful permanent residence also have expiration dates on them it doesn't mean that that person's l p r status doesn't continue beyond the expiration date it just means that they have to go renew and check in with the h s and petitioner so how the framewor the immigration judge said that if he can go back to ecuador he should be sent back to ecuador that's what the immigration judges in a country of removal i think can't go back to ecuador where there's a bill he would try to get travel documents to send him back to the people's republic of china as to everest credibility terminations this is a very high standard of review in this case and there's inconsistency from the documentary evidence and his testimony having to do with his father having to do with moving into the chief's home having to with his mother moving in to his death father's home having to do with the identity of a stepfather that's all its activities ha china and i will note if you look at the household registry it does note that his sister moved out page six one thousand of the record so there are annotations on there were people moved out or moved in but there's nothing there for petitioner and then as far as this trip to ecuador in trips united states the nature of these very special status is in both ecuador united states makes his testimony that he doesn't know is going on implausible  and i will say if you do reach the particular social group issue which you don't have to be based on what i believe is strong evidence in the record supporting adverse credibility and for well there's two issues going on with the p s g particular social group there's a nexus finding and then there's the actual determination about whether it's a particular social group that determination about whether it's a particular social group would have to be remanded  because of intervening short circuit precedent but again that only comes into play if he's found credible and really resettled below the united states doesn't feel as if the government said he's only basis for being concerned in ecuador is that he sent a bible to his mother and that he thought that plainclothes chinese policeman would come to ecuador and capture him and that's just not plausible so as far as a moral obligation i think that you know and  there's evidence in the record that he had jobs in ecuador well why did we bring about here in the for what did we want him out here in the first place as i said you are i think the ninety day parole into the united states and again he had relatives in new york he wanted to that he could visit was a is testimony about the smuggling operations so as an undercover smuggling op undercover investigation of the drug or of the alien smuggling operation and then in the record in education oh you talk so fast  wanted him to testify about that and so as a as a carrot or as an incentive they allowed him to be paroled into the united states for ninety days in order to testify but part of their presumably being that he had an uncle in the united states that he could then go and visit direct in new york it's in the record that he had family in new york and his parole documents specifically stated that after he went to miami he could then go to new york where his relatives were so it's that's i cannot speculate as to the contents of that interview but that interview did occur and i don't know what information they obtained from that or did not obtain from that but i don't think it's odd or whatever it is  states but that's not too surprising to him right he was granted ninety days to come to the united states for a particular purpose we allowed him to go visit his relatives it was very kind of us to do so and at the end of ninety days he knew he was supposed to go back to ecuador so what's the problem what we don't know if you know if he was but he knows he's got ninety days and then he has to go back i mean it's always a limited a limited purpose but i think the position is your honor is that you know he has ninety days and then he has to do something whether it be apply for relief apply for thank you for the argument