children at the primary inspection station and it back into the vehicle was discovered boston and is a three year old driven out after primary inspection the vehicle is referred over to secondary where the occupants of the vehicle were taken out and the minor children specifically gloria and lives in the shell then twelve and fourteen year old miners were separated from their mother they were health rover sixteen hours and questioned by various c b p officers customs and border protection officers and not released until after nine pm they were held in a cold never room without beds they were given no food and little water and they were threatened and frightened by evidence of alien smuggling relying on the two on sworn statements for the minor daughters there were there was a video tape taken of the petitioner but there is no videotape of the interview taken by the two minor daughters petitioner mother consistently denied even knowledge that boston was in the vehicle correctly so the immigration the findings is that he required the petitioner to convince him how bostic could have ended up in the vehicle he required an explanation and he was not convinced this is an improper shifting the burden of proof on the petitioner and i judges decision unsworn admissions from two minors without a parent or guardian present and without a videotape to verify the integrity of the interview procedure is insufficient to find movability by clear and convincing immigration judge found officers house see to be more credible than the two minor children however the evidence does not support that officer says he was testifying credibly when he was aspecific examples of what he remembered he couldn't frankly remember anything he could remember where the interview took place in spanish or english whether the children are with the mother or not whether the children were given blankets he did not remember threatening but of course he said he is not in the habit of doing that his testimony clearly shows that officer so selective memory he remembered very clearly that he treated the children very very well but he could not give any specific examples regarding his testimony remarkably he assumed and it's in the trial transcript that the kids could not have been involved in smuggling basti it never even occurred to him he was somewhat surprised by that thought after the cross examination of officer so seato the immigration judge i think in displaying some bias sought actively to the immigration judge goes through and say well you haven't done this have you officer sussed you know and he goes of course no no no no no the judge cites the three inconsistency is in finding the minor children's testimony incredible he looks to what was happening in the car in the way to the border he said what happened at the border while they are waiting to enter the inspection station and also he differed on the alleged mistreatment at the port of entry these three reasons are really insufficient looking at the don't versus the testimony of the minor children the immigration judge also abused his discretion by failing to grant the change of venue to san francisco after this case was was certainly no burden on the government to have the case transferred from san diego or san francisco this was important because at this point the board of immigration appeals was requiring the petitioner to explain her inconsistency sooner asylum application in order to do this she had submitted evidence a declaration from or husband regarding that he was a witness to the encounter with the military there was an application from the brother who was the police officer in honduras and a statement from him regarding his asylum claim in san francisco and he was also presidents have francisco and also haven't said a niece had been granted asylum for similar reasons in san francisco the reason why the husband could not be present in san diego at that time even though he had been present previously is because he had been diagnosed with cancer and could not travel it's about a fourteen hour drive and a five hundred mile trip immigration judge cites no reason why he could not documentarian evidence in the record that the judge ignores the nd immigration judge to consider the case and remind the guy a side to clean that up on appeal and look at the evidence but he doesn't cite to the evidence that was submitted into the record secondly we were unable to present those three witnesses to testify as to the credibility of the claim that the petition made regarding her salamat case in the husband was there in honduras of the time the military incident her claim was based on persecution of her brother who is a police officer in honduras he was president san francisco and had his own asylum application and there was the petitioners niece was granted asylum months the same or similar grounds those were very strong reasons why she should have been able to have a change of venue granted to san francisco so she could have corroborated her claim to asylum and that's specifically why the case was remanded to immigration judge the change of venue proof prevented the petitioner from being able to make that showing and i think even though there were documents placed into the record the immigration judge consider those documents prevented these witnesses from testifying this error really would require this matter to be remanded for further fact finding to the court so she would be able to present that evidence and it's not proper that  appeals would consider that evidence initially they are not finders of factor appellate body and that evidence really wasn't fully presented to the court immigration judge failed to consider the new country different country the morning may please the court this is dan a kamler for the attorney general this case is all about credibility petitioners counsel did not challenge the credibility findings in his opening brief so we submit that that was waived and that pretty much disposes of the majority of the issues he raises and the immigration judge found the petitioner and her two daughters were not credible witnesses their testimony was inconsistent contradictory there's a demeanor finding for the youngest child and they also contradicted their written statements and this was in terms of to support a motion to terminate proceedings and that that is that's just positive over his claim that the eye to thirteen should be suppressed i understand that he's claiming that c b p there was c b p misconduct in two thousand i did doesn't dispose of the question of course possible coercion well it does because their story is not credible and therefore the i j a did not take it as credible you know but i mean if the statement was coerced why does it what's credibility matter well i mean we don't we know when we went in the criminal context we not go to the merits of the statement and that's what the hearing was of the multiple merits hearings in support of that now it's based on what the two minor children claim happened to them and it's that testimony which is inconsistent it's  contradictory he doesn't address the eldest daughter who was eighteen at the time of the marriage hearing she wrote in her statement that her father was outside and she was harassed by c b p officer she testified that didn't happen that her father wasn't present she and roughly fifteen hours without their mother and area that was designed for kids but for adults with only a pile of blankets no food no water and questioned them provided regular meals at every six hour intervals and could request food so that is a c b p officers testimony he does say that he gave short time interviews with them because the story that their mother was providing was  that's at this three year old had independently changed out of her pajamas left the house climbed into the rd row at least reasoned that the petitioner interrogation was videotaped but the children's interrogation was not videotaped the officer stated that he could not find a supervising officer to ok the videotape of minors and he was uncomfortable doing it on his own authority how do we know what anything whether anything he says is credible because he gave consistent testimony over two merits hearings concerning what happened and what he remembered and he admitted he didn't remember everything he remembered that petitioner story was unbelievable and that's why he wanted to ask the miners along with his partner what had happened but that he had never threatened minor children in his career and that he had not done so here and there's reason there's a lot of doubt on what petitioner is claiming and what her daughters are claiming basically is children himself that that was particularly believable but he didn't remember you know every single thing about the interaction he remembered who his partner was that they were ten minute interviews and a argument that we are raising our brief and even if we did want to say he didn't waive it he didn't address the specific bases for why the children and mother were not credible during their merits hearing testimony and therefore you can't compel a different result if we don't accept their testimony as true because it's not credible or left with the c b p officers testimony and they haven't made a prima fascia showing for suppression is there are there any other questions for the panel not for me if you do anything else you want to i guess the one thing i do want to clarify about what happened on remand  specific language of the board's reman decision was for her to have an opportunity to be confronted with inconsistency as in her testimony for her asylum application and she declined to testify and rehabilitate it wasn't for her to bring in other witnesses she should provided the opportunity to to do so it doesn't say that she was the only person that was that could have testified as to the inconsistency is in her application and her in court testimony it said she should be provided an opportunity to do so and whether she could do that through her own testimony or through other witnesses really she's not restrained from doing that if she has corroborating of any sort she should have been able to provide that are you saying like for instance  it was inconsistent but certainly could have been provided in court testimony but the immigration judge in any case didn't consider that it was argued in front of the nd immigration judge after emad that the judge said well what are you can rely on if you're not going to have the respondent testify in those proceedings leslie the petitioner here and i said i would rely on the documentary evidence that was already submitted he never considered it in his decision and the board then attempts to kind of whitewash over that error and say well we looked at it and there's no reason to disturb it we're still going to leave the decision as it is thank you thank you counsel him the case just her abusive and her decision