he did engage in criminal activity in this country he was convicted perhaps in this very courtroom of just abusing of methamphetamine and to the fraudulent use of the food benefit card it was stanch to three years in prison he served three years in prison for those crimes that you are this case is not about crime and punishment it is about torture we the united states do not engage in court or torture we do not condon torture and we do not return an individual to a place where there are subscribing substantial grounds for believing that they will be subject to torture you know given that  supposed to happen with the prior proceeding where on the issue of fear of future persecution and torture you are exactly as determined that instruments are it's not credible about qualify for asylum this is strictly a question of whether a removable individual is going to be sent back to a country where  possibility of future torture shall be considered including evidence of past torture evidence of gross flagrant or live spread fumin rights abuses in the country  evidence still has to be considered but at the time the immigration judge made the adverse credibility determination relief under the convention against torture was not available so and and so it figuring in june thirtieth two thousand and reports in the record describing those symptoms and so that and the immigration judges he decided to give no wait a completely disregarded the psychological evaluations of do we have to ins and under even under far the ashcroft and adverse credibility determination is not sufficient to deny the convention against torture application take without considering the other adults have brings me back to my only question th i'm just trying to get a handle on what if we were to agree with you he didn't get a cap type of hearing what is the evidence that has to be considered you know that in fact you aren't reversing the numbers credibility application bar which i think was invoked by the immigration judge that is correct or low whether that would apply to the current leader can claim or not proposed today on his appeal after two thousand and three after the hearing in two thousand and three he did say that the immigration judge did not properly consider his commission as torture application he did not specifically section twenty two forty one that was pending at the time the real i d act was passed on may two thousand and five therefore this court upheld it will be treated as a petition for review the  be used to towns constitutional issues this is probably the significant part of the conversation over changes that decision will review we now review the b r a's decision not the district court's order d act as i pointed out before is basically a review of the administrative record that's what the access and it says the administrative findings of fact are conclusive all lest any reasonable educated will be compelled eliminates review of this court for people who have certain felony convictions i guess what i'm telling you now here's the way that the situation is you've got to decide this issue based on what would have been hasn't done anything since me eleventh to bring before this court the administrate record i've measured this statement but i guess what judge banner said is irrelevant i would like you not to tell him i said that but you're judging out what the immigration judge said and want to be either here in this particular case i submit to you that the immigration church found this person not credible that worst case finding  misapprehension or psychological experiments that record is what it is what if we agree that there is not a true cap type of here and here on the issues that are relevant under the convention against torture b to do what would be the evidence to be worked out what would be the standards and what would be the ability if any of the petitioner to be raised again the court in a criminal trial so if the immigration judge judge bennett was to have to rehear this matter i presume there would be very few limitations on what he could receive that evidence trial judge would know you're stuck with what the witness tells you because you can't go into these countries and get witnesses if i want to you know how my going to impeach this guy's trust me understand with these immigration cases that both sides are in the to them things all the time whether he articulated that or not i don't know i think you could watch the news and decide to do yeah there is torture in gaming does it meet the cats claim of value no being from a government institution based on the standards or whether it's just his neighbors don't like humans on stones or another question the reminders not that we need of the he is because obviously served prison time was the fact that he was a why i didn't get your question the answer i think i think is yes it does because the asylum claim even though five los angeles has not decided and when it when they came in front of judge bennett that you can argue that you filed an asylum claim with the asylum office which is a different organization it's part of the old immigration naturalization system it's not part of immigration court that when he came up here and said he had an immigration cla pending and the judge has final consider that it was transferred and file an immigration court that day excuse me filed an immigration court that it wasn't transferred and it takes that date with over my time for it is because we don't believe that's a frivolous crime and so it will be only logical if we don't believe you we don't believe what you're saying aggressively i think that's a logical result of that i'm regulation itself even if this regulation were to apply the regulations it does not preclude it was polling of removal quite so and