if it may please the court attorney tennessee ofi for the petitioner we have here a case where the petitioner admitted to finally frivolous supplication she is therefore what regulation and given that the statute says the alien shall be permanently an eligible for any benefits under this chapter which includes withholding in this chapter so of course the regulations can't be directly contrary to the statute so i was wondering to do these withholding regulations only apply to withholding under a convention against torture or how how do you explain this clear con seem curious to me however i mean the section seems pretty clear where it says and the board recognized it because they still considered withholding where it is under from withholding under this chapter it could be an hour but for the purposes of this case i'm sure the petitioner will accept the relief under cad as well if that's the only thing available to her since she can no longer ation is your client eligible for withholding on your convention against torture i would argue that she is and i did argue that in my brief because she suffered a forced abortion which under the law of this circuit is considered permanent and for purposes of withholding is  have a fear of a future abortion you know she had testified that she couldn't become pregnant right and i believe that's actually one of the reasons the judge used to deny your case which i don't believe which i believe is completely world so i believe they considered ongoing forever i think the main issue in this case and it is that young is that the government's argument goes beyond the scope of the board's decision which did not even consider and adopt the judge's finding that the frivolous determination collars the withholding the word did not adopt that there is no mention of that at all and the government tries to bring it back in and they try to argue that false and all fal one false to all applies to this case that's a pretty lady case and not only that that case levy holder concerned two separate claims for asylum here we have two separate applications so i think the case is distinguished the petition r in this case never testified as to her false application she readily admitted that it was false so why is that why does that section on withholding exist if been found frivolous make you whether she had an abortion but whether yes forced abortion well the evidence in front of the i j a was that there was a certificate of abortion yes of course they're terrific and didn't say forced or not the sources you generally do not have never seen one that says force say abortion and that was my thing i don't see how i can get around the j's fact finding maybe i would have found the same maybe i wouldn't have but it seems to me there was substantial evidence supporting the i j a saying this is just not a believable witness and i don't i just don't think that she's proven to me given her past record of falsifications  at this was a forced abortion i mean that's where the case is for me i would just note that there was absolutely nothing with regards to the actual past abortion they did not highlight a single discrepancy in her testimony about the past abortion her sister and so on yes so obviously somebody is helping her make up a story disbarred attorney if the attorney if she had told the attorney i had a forced abortion then go she's in well actually it's it's in the record down as she testified that that first lawyer told her you would have a one year issue and so he made up the story so they can get around it and yes she went along with that risk petition as a fifty seven year old lady with a middle school education and i think the record reflects that that for example the discrepancy about whether she can conceive she just didn't understand the question and the government attorney had to explain it to the times and stand about it quite want to about the testimony of the government keeps asking you questions and she gives answers that maybe she understands maybe she doesn't maybe there's trouble of the translation i've seen case after case with particular chinese applicants where the trans later is bad it's not at all clear that the person understands i get all of that but i'm after a slightly different proposition i think to get to where you need to get you got to tell me either that she didn't tell the lawyer first time around that she'd had a forced abortion that's possible or that a lawyer first time around having heard that story was so incompetent as not to recognize that that was a get out of jail free card they're automatically provided asylum well again and i will point out that within the record she does say i did i did tell the lawyer everything that happened to me and he said you have to make up this christian claim than authority that worked for the disbarred attorney told or make up the story and you can get around the claim applying for any benefit the attorney general interprets benefit as different from interprets withholding of removal both under the act and under the convention against torture as protection from removal which it doesn't a compass a benefit or really really from reg i'm not sure the best i can offer you right now is you know g two reinstatement cases i'm not sure if you're honest familiar with them but reinstatement cases the if the l n has a prior remove or to reinstate it you're not eligible for asylum there reinstatement statute says you're not eligible for any relief from removal there are still eligible however withholding under the act in the convention because you're trying to generalize interpreted both of those as protection from removal and there is a supreme court case i believe it's fernandez vargas there's a  that the attorney general has distinguished know this record doesn't pass and whether that's legal or not but they do know that the person still eligible and i would say this is very similar to the reinstatement case since in interprets withholding as a  that the reinstatement read proper does have that in the notice and comment not in the reg itself but in the actual federal registry and three ok the second issue i want to touch on is the convention against torture that's case turning to that the principal reason for denial is the adverse credibility determination and i'd like to focus on two issues in particular one was already touched on she did file a frivolous of some application and she admitted that and she could see to fabricate at the facts and original asylum application in this asylum application was very specific she said that six policemen broke into her home and she was having a religious gathering she was detained for twenty three days she was severely mistreated this is consistent with these fabricate it facts so there's false testimony there's also fos testimony before the immigration judge of these facts because immigration judge asked her when did she enter the united states in order to establish a chain of custody for s her across documents and she testified consistent with her frivolous asylum application the issue wasn't how to reject her explanation that she didn't do anything wrong because she was just going with her prior attorney and three instances  at pages one fifty one fifty one one fifty five two zero two and three ninety seven she meant she knew what she's doing the other principal reason why the immigration judge denied or found her not credible was she consistently exhibit a vase of behavior now she was not responsive to questions asked and i can appreciate and i agree because i've seen a lot of chinese cases myself often there are interpreter problems i'm a lot of times the question is never directly answered even when they try to go around it but in this case the immigration judge  i'm going to take a break so you can compose yourself and it wasn't just non responsive answers to questions she often rambled when responding to direct questions at page one fifty two the interpreter asked a judge for slow down because she kept rambling the tripper how to interpret properly the judge told told her what's go go to the restroom you need to compose yourself at pages one eighty two just prior to cross examination and this was before any test just i'm sorry and this is before any testimony was actually taken because her trial was over two days this is prior to cross examination the i g asked her if she was all right because she was already crying on the witness stand before any testimony was taken these are behavior is that in the immigration judges experience are weird they don't happen in most applications so he cited those and find her incredible as your i was getting to with my colleague earlier the only evidence of an abortion in this case setting aside her testimony is the abortion certificate a pace two fifty honor because even if you fully credit that abortion certificate it doesn't show that it was forced and i point that is if you other than the certificate is there evidence that she has or her testimony which was me that's all there is are there some background documents in the record and those are actually page three twenty one says that during the period where she claimed to have had an abortion which was one thousand nine hundred four there was a notable drop in forced abortions during that period and that's again a page three twenty one that that part of your argument is that there's no indication that she had an abortion or is it more the forced abortion which seemed to be kind of would be i was talking about it the argument is actually both because i don't believe that the immigration judge even believe that that document was what it purported to be but he let it out and well most immigration judges let almost every document and they just according to mr weight it's just very calm and it's tendered a false docking to the court he viewed everything else with a lens of suspicion which he has a right to do given the facts of this case you know why she came to admit that the prior application was false you know what would produce that admission  and i just point out that page three eighty four of the state department report does discuss abortion certificates it's in three d for the record and the state department at least at the time of it at this time and there are typically there are only aware of them issued much sometimes you are so i'd like to address the abortion certificate i will note that the board's reason for disregarding and given unlimited weight is nonsensical they said well it's not as valid because she didn't submit contemporaneous medical documents she was never asked whether those exist and the government could have done forensics on this abortion certificate there is absolutely nothing in the record besides you know the prior instances to show it suggests that this abortion certificate is not genuine so you could argue that even outside of her testimony she has established a claim with this perfectly valid abortion certificate there is also an i u d document in the record that shows that she still has an i u d all these years later and again the three reasons highlighted by the board to deny your case do not hold water one is the message testimony about whether she can conceive as i pointed out in the brief she was completely confused when talking about the i used the second one she remained in the country for a very long time that doesn't matter with a forced abortion and finally they said the fortune certificate is not from one thousand nine hundred four again they didn't check whether one is available and there's nothing to indicate that it's not genuine so yes there is a frivolous supplication however her testimony on the forced abortion this credible thank you think both sides for the your argument over secession is now submitted for decision