flores did not receive a fair hearing at this case and he didn't receive a full review of his immigration hearing before the board of immigration appeals for that reason we asked him to remain we realize that one of the first issues that comes before this court is the one year bar in your jurisdiction to review the one year bar and i believe in this case you have several grounds to review the asylum case and the one year bar firstly the b i a failed in its duty five times in the brief to the b i a the petitioner requested that they be on a review the asylum claim but he didn't argue changed or extraordinary circumstances to justify the untimely filing that's correct because that was not the reason given by the  requirement and so the judge found it timely and to overcome that untimely missed finding before the forward there would need to be a showing of changed or extraordinary circumstances and there was no effort made to make that showing i would disagree with you on two points one i think that the the oral susan of the judge and the written decision of the immigration judge states and he says my only basis for denying the applications is the credibility finding i don't believe him well that even if applications that he did consider on the merits which were the withholding and the cat claim he didn't consider the asylum claim on the merits he said it was untimely which we believe is error in and of itself that it was it came three years after his  deliberately untimely no doubt it was clearly untimely but he still allowed a hearing on his asylum claim and his extraordinary circumstances claim a change of country conditions going to the second part but not the first part he can't get merits review of the asylum claim if it's untimely he has to overcome the time bar first and that requires a showing of extraordinary circumstances or changed country conditions and he made neither of those showings either before the i j a or before the i would respectfully disagree that the that the the stick the c f r and the statutes both say that the asylum applicant has a right to an evidentiary hearing before the judge makes a determination as to the merits of his claim and the b i a itself in the merits were never before the agency because that claim was untimely i disagreed or in order to overcome the time you have to make the required statutory showing regulatory showing of extraordinary circumstances or changed country conditions and there was no effort to overcome that so i think you better move on to your withholding and cat claims yes your honor i would just point out that at the i level there was a attempt to make an evidentiary record of the extraordinary circumstances and the strange circumstances but he was prevented from making an evidentiary record going to hearing why can you briefly tell me the two parents letters were not considered by the immigration judge at all they were in english signed by them but wow were they actually prepared sort of record of how they were i think that there was testimony at the hearing that they were prepared exactly the way t statement was prepared which was they it was a spanish speaking attorney that was representing the petitioner at the time she spoke to them over the phone they and she translated into english and mailed it to him just as she did the petitioner in the detention center spoke to him over the phone translate it so they're reviewing the document or do you believe it was improper for the immigration judge completely disregard not literally but what about his argument that all their information was second hand but they didn't know about the incident on the other shootings and then the incident on the bus i get it doesn't mean it has no weight just because that it was secondhand everything other than my petitioners own testimony would be secondhand and isn't their statements about the threats that they were receiving and the son was receiving certainly their own threats that's first and correct correct are if you are good yes i would agree with that in not only the the parents statements were ignored by the judge but as i put in that brief there were ten other documents t to statements that were completely ignored by the immigration judge as well as the b i a it is a totality of the circumstances test for credibility so to look at the record as a whole and it's very clear that neither  lawyer testify and they were waiting for him to come by phone and i think that it was mike i don't it's not in the record exactly but my understanding is are these a four hour here and you have the afternoon for your hearing and so i think the presumption was they would have time for two li witnesses and it's very common in immigration court for the rest of the witnesses to appear by affidavit so that would not have been unusual by any means that many witnesses and thereby affidavit sort explanation for why in the arrest warrant the victim the same person who was in the camp who was killed in the care of this also on the arrest warrant for your client i am not surprised by that at all i mean what what my client has been saying over and over again is that this is corruption this is fraud you know this is a part of it there are some documents that were presented in the bond hearing that were not presented at the immigration hearing but the fact that there was no foreign service officer that signed off on these warrants that went to interpol is what they were arguing from the get go saying these are not valid and there's a reason there's a bilateral treaty with el salvador that says that we have to have a foreign service officer on the ground to validate that these are valid documents i mean there's a reason this is not an extradition hearing it's because those underlying documents were not you know were not valid and the fact that they are here i know i reserved three minutes for rebuttal so i think that that means i only have ten seconds the fact that that he has an arrest warrant does not at all i think undo everything he's been saying for the last three years that m s thirteen is coming after him because he witnessed a murder i would reserve the rest of my time for that my name is john for singer and i represent the united states attorney general the respondent in this matter the central question in this case is whether petitioners claim is credible and the answer to that question is no under the realize he asked an immigration judge me based in adverse credibility determination on a petitioner statements written or written or oral and wherever and whenever made and here petitioners testimony is inconsistent with the statements he made in his written statement and i want to point out that the written statement was made five months before his testimony so we're not talking about huge span of time which petitioners on memory could somewhat fade and he couldn't recall certain details for example example with regard to the taxi incident and his written version of events he said that him and his three friends were in the taxi that the gang members stopped the taxi and began shooting at the taxi and then his friend jose on his own volition exited the taxi from the front passenger seat of a car attempted to run away create a diversion and somehow got back in the taxi and the taxi sped off the taxi wouldn't take them to the hospital and then petitioner and two of the friends walked to the police station in his testimony which again was only five months later but stated that the ministry friends were all sitting seated in the back of the taxi cab that the gang members came began shooting at the car that his friend jose was forcibly removed from the car that he began to struggle and then in the struggle and in some collision the polish will attempt to escape and create a diversion in the struggle that is the struggle that created the diversion in that the taxi cab away but jose didn't make it back to the taxi he was left out with luis which is the individual who was murdered in this incident and that petitioner and his fourth friends made it back and it was just them two were able to escape in the taxi these are major inconsistency they are minor inconsistencies with regard to the bus incident and one version of events he claims he got in from the front gang members came in from the back approached him and he escaped from interactions i think even justified shooting incident was happened in a matter of seconds the what beck could get into the hospital took a while but the incident itself where they were sitting there for very quick incident it's true but when he had the whether the gunman was wearing a purple shirt or green shirt these are the sequence of events and he can't remember basic sequence of events i mean a lot of it to have to do with his escape did he escape through the back of the bus or go to escape through the front of the bus and there are details that you would expect someone would remember he's saying that there's a hail of bullets in the taxi he had to jump out of a moving bus you would think these were are these would be details that he would recall also i mean i think you're going to whether they might be whether he can't remember them or if they're immaterial but i would argue that they are material and they are things he should remember a minor inconsistency would be again like if the gunman was wearing a purple shirt or green shirt but and consistencies ancillary they don't have to do with what classes he was attending in university or what he had for breakfast the day of the incident these go to the specific incidents that underlies claim for asylum and also the explanations for the inconsistency is we're not we're talking about just the claim for withholding and relief under the convention we're not talking about the asylum claim because the board said there was a way for because there was no attempt to show change country conditions or extraordinary circumstances to overcome time bar that's correct and gratian did judge did find that the asylum application was time buyer but the board did find that the  in terms of those explanations for the inconsistency i would just like to point out that his in his explanations were not persuasive he was given an opportunity to correct the his statement he testified that he reviewed it with his attorneys and that he signed off on it but he was given another opportunity to review it he did make changes to the written declaration he changed one of his friends names and he changed the date he did not change any of the other inconsistency as he has the opportunity to do it he made changes and he didn't change simple things like where people were sitting in the car how people escaped what door he entered i think that's very telling  veracity of what he said for the i j a and then finally he did nothing to rehabilitate his claim the letters that he submitted from his purported parents were written in english and written as if the parents wrote them themselves and it's undisputed that they don't understand english generally i mean per the immigration court handbook an affidavit or a declaration in english by a person who does not understand english must include a certificate of interpretation stating that the document was read to the person in the language the person understands and the person and tested and states of the person understood it that's chapter three point three of the immigration court practice manual that was not included in the statement without that on the face of the document we have it's it you don't know that w people parents first attesting to really understood what they were reading and signing and based upon those circumstances the immigration judge was completely in his discretion for giving it little to absent the crab orating evidence potentially he actually said that the one of the reasons he was a concern is because they had no firsthand knowledge of the incident in the camp where the bus but the rest of their lives and that's true of course but the rest of their letters evidence your weight should be accorded to it on the english language grounds not on the fact that they didn't have personal knowledge so i would argue that any error on the immigration doors is fighting in that regard as heartl but circumstances here does not compel that conclusion thank you thank you and see i think that a reasonable fact i'm going to read be compelled to find that petitioner was credible i think to hold on to minor inconsistency is which actually are much more similar to a purple or green shirt or whether or not he was wearing a shirt in reference to the nexus between what the discrepancy was and credibility whether the people came from the back of the bus or the front of the bus or whether his friend was sitting in the middle seat and hopped over the front and went out don't have a clear nexus to credibility that the rest of the documents that the courts ignored do for example ignoring the country reports that say that corruption is rampant that has alexis to a nexus to the credibility of a petition who's saying that the government is corrupt and coming after me the as you have pointed out all of the statements in that the parents statements and the other facts but i also want to point to what she was saying  about there being no certificate of translation on the parent statement there was also no certificate of translation on the petition or statement you can't take throw out two and then hang your hat on the same thing on the other either they're both not credible or they're all credible but you can't say well i'm going to throw these two out because there's no certificate of translation but for his we're going to hold him to every small word in his even though no certificate of translation on that one either  the truth of the matter is it's a credible claim he's saying m s thirteen is coming after him and there's ten documents that i listed in the court record that support that there are zero documents in the court record that support the i g his conclusion that the petitioner was not credible other than he couldn't remember from which direction and as i put in my with my reply brief he also testified he had your phones on when he entered the bus and his first statement when asked by his own attorney when he was actually being allowed to present his own evidence was that he saw the one m s thirteen coming from him in front of him and he i saw one behind him and there's nothing in that in his direct testimony to indicate that he saw from which direction they came on in fact he very clearly says he did not see them coming on with him and then they were coming from the front and then there was one behind him these don't go to credibility it's memory like you said and the fact that he didn't give you verbatim the exact words of the exact statement that he wrote five months before does not go against his credibility it goes for its credibility it tells you that he's retelling the story from his memory it makes it more real not less real that there are some small errors in it if you gave you her bade him exactly what he'd written before then there'd be some question that he memorized it also i would write to remind you that he gave a sensually the same story of the credible fear interview that was also in the upper right thank you thank