good morning your honour's i'm judy woodruff and i represented petitioner mr soprani in an issue in this case is whether the immigration judge addressed the question of frivolousness separately and made to this country with his understanding of family which is in direct contradiction to the united states understanding of family because in iran he was raised by relatives by an uncle and his blood father lived outside of iran and in fact had moved to the united states and become a resident that is the pivotal problem with this case he says the  petitioners understanding of family since he was raised by his uncle he considered his uncle to be his real father that testimony ran through the entire course of the first hearing and the immigration judge did not really take into account the explanation of his family bonding to his father who raised him and so there was all this discussion during the course of the hearing of who is your father and who is your mother and the petitioner contends that the immigration judge did not make a separate finding of frivolousness in fact he just incorporated his finding of credibility into his frivolousness finding and the case why definitely sets forth that the respondent must be afforded an opportunity to completely explain the discrepancies between what may have appeared in his asylum application and what he testified to in court now his in this case the petitioner's asylum application unfortunately and that notarial did not take into account all  the facts about family also during the course of the hearing the parents were living in the united states and they could have testified at that hearing explaining these discrepanc unfortunately had another lawyer who didn't actually think of this during the course of the hearing that should have happened and that and that's one of the reasons why i think that this court should remand the case so that he can actually provide the immigration judge which with the come comprehensive explanation of basically who through this is a question of who's who this case resolved resolves around who are his parents the pivotal question beyond his identity beyond well even if the case law holds that even if someone is found frivolous they're still eligible for withholding and that's why i'm bringing up the actual material aspects of this case which include a description of being tortured in iran on account of being a christian which has nothing to do with who his parents are he was a sound i know there's something wrong with this does he have a  fear of persecution in armenia because deportations too are no he does not have a fear of persecution in armenia he's never argued that he's only fear of persecution is based on the fact that he is a christian and in iran he was arrested twice and tortured and he's a member of a particular social group he has a religion that puts him in a special group christians in iran are definitely not have a farsi speaking interpreter but the judge specifically asked him to speak in farsi and he did he did speak f and his parents left iran and went to armenia his blood parents left iran and went to a meeting then they were able to immigrate to the united states he didn't talk about that he should have his lawyer should have prepared him to expression is how do determination to be more questionable well the frivolous finding was not supported by a separate analysis that's a problem in this case even though even in the government's brief they recognize that and say that although in matter of y l the government has the judge has to give the opportunity to the to the petition and to explain everything because of the severe consequences of a frivolous finding its basically a death sentence section two eighty six of the i n e says only if a final order specifically finds that the alien filed a frivolous application such a finding can be made only if the the board is satisfied that he has had a suspicion opportunity to account for any discrepancies this is the problem although he tried to explain the relationship of his blood parents to his adoptive parents it  very convoluted during the course of this of the immigration hearing i believe that if the hearing had been conducted in a proper way that the blood parents sorry to use that term but his biological parents what it would have been should have been present in the courtroom because they in fact could have explains how they actually gave their son to the uncle who raised him in iran and that would have been the end of the any kind of credibility finding let alone a finding  frivolousness so i think that this petitioner actually was left left out in the cold by the whole course of events first with the filing of the i five eighty nine in the first place with the wrong information on it which was done by you know taria and i'm sure explained these discrepancies as it was it was left to the petitioner to explain the cultural differences between people in this country and people in his country and in his country in iran and people of armenian descent there's a whole elements of kinship and people who are related not necessarily directly as father son but uncle son considered the uncle to be the father if in fact the father raises him that's  basic argument that he wasn't lying about it about his father who his father was or who his mother was he just considered his family different really than the united states considered him there are many countries in the world that have different interpretations of what the word family means and what the word mother and father means so i think this respondent wasn't this petitioner wasn't given the proper advice in the first place and was not represented properly and then the judge didn't actually assess all the factors in making his frivolous finding talking about family issues and they have no bearing on this case in the sense that petitioner the immigration judge found that petitioner actually perpetrated a false who had before the court  specifically the immigration judge made a specific and distinct finding that petition annoyingly based an application for asylum on inherently false information and that the evidence regarding his false testimony addressing the feeblest last case is incorrect because the record clearly shows that immigration judge did address the issue moreover this court has held that an immigration george may incorporate by reference any factual findings made in support of an adverse credibility finding so long as the immigration judge makes explicit findings that are that incredible aspects of the asylum application where material  applied for a visa to the united states at the embassy in armenia we also have on record here the fact that petitioner clearly stated his parents name when he was referring to three forty seven to page three forty eight of the administrative wreckage so it was clear as found by the i g and the immigrant on the board that clarity made false statements regarding essential elements of his application before the court the immigration judge did more than issue an obvious credibility finding the and there is other evidence suggesting that maybe some of this he didn't deliberately barracking well the what the immigration judge found and the language that the immigration judge used was that the false testimony in the record was overwhelming and that is on page one hundred fifty nine of the administrative record and this finding was based on the fact that the judge just saw that looked at the record and found that pitch i had specifically mentioned he's parents names so there was no confusion as to whether it was a cultural difference regarding how families are regarded in different cultures on page three forty seven to forty eight of the record petition aspecific only mention his father mr up and his mother lisita he mentioned them specifically by name he did not mention his uncle who cations showing their name and he also concedes that those are his parents so it was very clear on the record that that was what the immigration judge stated in the record that he was going to listen to the tapes because there was an issue that was contest immigration judge did look at the to listen to the tapes and made a finding that definitely those were his parents he mentioned them specifically by name and the fact that petition has nonimmigrant visa application so that he had also i made a specific finding based on a preponderance of the evidence in the record i hear of the mackay c which is a case that talks about that discuss this is a similar issue so that immigration judge is free to rely on both direct and circumstantial evidence so long as a preponderance of the evidence supports a finding of favor  quoting knowingly based an application for asylum on inherently false information and that the evidence regarding his false testimony is overwhelming  well because the immigration judge had made an odd respectability finding and i know that the address credibly defining is a separate and distinct one from the frivolous application finding but because the courts have a corporate well i'm going from somewhere else the immigration judge didn't use that those specific brought up all kinds of different interpretations and within the cultural context to explain away the discrepancies in the wreckage well i'm not talking about the general problem i'm talking about the fact that there must make specific findings that the applicant no knowingly filed a frivolous application and i mean i think where those specific findings are well you know i know as i stated earlier there are no overwhelming constitute specific findings if you said which testimony you'd have specific findings but if you just say generally the testimony is overwhelming that's not a specific finding  specific statement that the immigration judge made leads us to conclude that he made if frivolous asylum application finding and that finding by the i g is supported in the record i ponder as of the evidence based the court the board held that this case y l which basically mirrors our own case that we're talking about today the board found that they had to vacate the and send it back to the board and to the probably finally to the immigration judge because the judge had not given the applicant in that case a sufficient opportunity to explain the perceived discrepancies or implausibilities and that's exactly what happened here the immigration had the power actually to subpoena the parents to testify he didn't do that and he didn't make a separate as you've noted your honor he didn't make a separate finding of frivolousness and he didn't incorporate it either he simply said that