morning your honour's me please the court little appearing on behalf of the petitioner i would like to reserve two minutes for rebuttal my client from all softened or faces deportation and this is due to the lower agencies decisions that are flawed and unsubstantiated no my client faces what is essentially a death sentence in this home country before coming to the united states  situation he did he did amend his declaration from his initially submitted one but he he submitted it well before the hearing pursuant to the practice manual for that you  and even before right before the first merits hearing the judge asked mr can taro's four pages of colloquy whether he had made sure that his declarations summited on that day august twenty ninth two thousand and twelve were complete and were going to be consistent with his testimony he he ascertained that mr can terrell's affirm that it was and therefore they proceeded with the testimony later the judge turns around and says well you know too bad you didn't include it in your nationally submitted application in two thousand and nine so i'm going to draw a negative inference your honor these people that are seeking asylum in the united states have been traumatized attorney advised me to include it in the in the in the declaration right before that you know pursuant to that that was timely submitted pursuant to the practice manual i did because it was important was the idea obligated to accept that that found that this was a credibility issue and he said that this even though he raised his eyebrows about you know the him not having included it in the beginning he actually based his claim on the fact that there were inconsistencies in this testimony so that was relegated to a secondary consideration when he made his first credibility finding in fact the the heart the decision was based on the fact that mr can terrell's at one point said that his father was alive but throughout four days of testimony and countless hours of testimony that was consistent that he said that his father was dead when he arrived at the scene the based his decision on the fact that you know in eight words at one point in cross examination he said that he was alive you know we can all agree that you know when you see somebody you don't necessarily ascertain whether the person is alive or dead but importantly your honour's the th is is an immaterial fact that the i g was basing his decision on because what is important here is that his father was dead and this was provided as evidence to corroborate what my client was going to the fate that he was that he was going to face if he if he did not flee for his life so the important and material consideration here was whether the the father was killed you put it put aside for a moment the credit adverse credibility determined other evidence was presented yes your honor that death certificate of his father a decoration from a justice of the peace regarding the b'nei of brothers a couple other declarations one from his mother and i just took a look at those to see if maybe those if that if that body of evidence a relief yes your honor in a withholding of removal analysis a claim the first thing that the first burden that we have to meet is whether there was persecution then we get into the nexus and whether it was a protected ground and all of that terrace had a burden of proof to show that he had suffered past persecution or feared for your future persecution and i believe it was an account political opinion was the basis yes you are claiming here yes that was the pieces of evidence the news article a news articles very strong objective evidence that corroborates a very salient fact in his claim the news article about his father's murder that the reasoning was that there was no motive in the news article how many on account of political opinion it did not your honor i didn't see it at either it did not and it's correct to say that there is no motive stated in the article that's true however the real id act does require that there is objective evidence be present be presented in support of the claim but i remind this court that testimony alone is sufficient to meet the burden and this taro's not only had his testimony which was unfortunately disregarded he also had ample objective evidence one by one the i j a went through them and dismissed each piece of evidence for what i submit was unsubstantiated the father's death certificate he said there was no motive stated on the death certificate well it was presented to corroborate how he was murdered by machete and firearm the police report it name the actual killers if you want to save a little bit for rebuttal yes your honor yes thank you your honor it three seconds yes for and for these reasons we ask that that at least there be a rematch and to the p i a s so that this person gets a say in court and is able to set forth the basis for his claim thank you very much good morning your honour's jonathan ross for the attorney general the point that is really at issue in this case as your honour's have already pointed out is the credibility of mr can tears of allah and as the immigration judge found which the b i a affirmed he did not testify credibly in fact the immigration judge cited a number of inconsistency isn't omissions which under the real idea act even one of those is sufficient to render someone's testimony not credible because the immigration judge gave specific and cogent reasons the adverse credibility finding is supported and again just because this is a real id act case it's also important to no that even if this court finds only that substantial evidence only supports one of these issues identified by the immigration judge then the petition for review should be denied i also want to correct the record just for a moment here  in regards to the excuse me in regards to the omission identified by my colleague about the in the initial declaration there wasn't an attack in the subsequent there was the explanation he gave before the immigration judge it was not that he was traumatized the explanation he gave is that he didn't think that it was important that he didn't think that it was necessary were his exact words and when the immigration judge confronted him with  this is obligation under the case law of this circuit he gave the explanation lead iran that i didn't want to be deported not only was this response nonresponsive but the immigration judge was free at that point to  define that major inconsistency a personal attack to his body where no whether personal attack occurred in his original declaration as a substantial issue in determining his credibility and again this was a finding that the board of immigration appeals upheld the second issue is the inconsistency regarding the death of his father an issue he testified that his father was alive when he reached the scene of the accident it was only on cross examination when it came up again he began to be evasive he was not answering the judge's questions and the judge went through great lengths to say please i'm going i'm going to ask you the question again please only answer what i've asked and at that point he said oh well when i showed up to the scene my father was dead now and as far as petitioners argument that perhaps the body was there he still had some life left in him unfortunately that is a argument that the immigration judge already considered as did the board and they were not required as your honour's pointed out before they were not required to accept that explanation supported by the record because his testimony involving the inconsistency was evasive in addressing not only the the initial confrontation the initial part when the inconsisten when he was not giving direct answers but subsequently when he started talking about other testimony that wasn't even relevant so the immigration judge did give specific and cogent reasons why why he didn't accept that explanation well you know  he wasn't so explicit in fact rather the contrary he specifically said to the immigration judge when i arrived my father was alive and again to my to my previous point given that there was already this waffling in the record he wasn't required to accept the explanation when mr can tears of all it was trying to adapt his testimony to conform to the version that ultimately came out so these are the two in consisten compel a contrary finding what about the objective evidence that was yes your honor the immigration judge fully weighting considered the objective evidence including the statement from the justice of the peace the news article the statement from the mother and the death certificate and found that even if he was credible even if he did present credible testimony the objective evidence didn't support or didn't offset the his pre previous credibility issues  to govern would have to double check to see whether or not that was argued if my memory is correct i was just curious because the b i didn't the i did dressed all that but the b i didn't see any correct i had the government observe that as well however the board when they affirm the immigration judge decision it seemed that they accepted it as a whole and where the immigration judge really went into detail weighing each piece of evidence individually found that overall it supported the adverse credibility finding was collateral and immaterial and i'd like to point out that the made two errors and its decision it said that he said that his father was alive twice in the in the record and that is incorrect and also