case revolves it seems to me around one salient issue and that is whether the petitioners prior attempts to obtain relief using false information bars him from reopening his case based on his true identity and what happened in to his family in  the board of immigration appeals basically says that the evidence that he submitted was not sufficient it's not sufficiently reliable and it was not  r two eighty seven point six regulation however the board in its decision only one of its own cases for its authority document can be relied on in this case the petitioner provided an affidavit explaining what happened which i believe pending case the document perhaps more importantly there are two experts affidavits that were filed with this motion to reopen one from professor thomas moore who's an expert on  asylum and now says that that was a false application but he says that that was because of an atari or whatever he doesn't show up for his immigration hearing and then his first motion to reopen is in two thousand which he still claiming he's from india and then for the very first time in twenty eleven that's when he says he's from the paul so i know part of what you raise is you're saying that on a motion to reopen you can't wait credibility but everything that he claims that things that are undisputed are inconsistent so if you look at the standard of review how can we say that to be a fair i mean if you wife you can look at it  but there's i mean there's some fairly significant damning information against her client i understand that but i think that you can use the novus standard in the  board has abused its discretion number one based on the number of precedents in this circuit which don't require a book which don't require  was that when we had him evaluated by the psychoanalyst we sent him we had his information evaluated by professor marks specifically to determine for own purposes but i believe that the board is ultimately confused two issues there's one issue as to whether he should get a hearing whether the case should be reopened to give them a hearing at which these issues can be evaluated top so his identity is that issue and the board essentially said you haven't shown your this person from nepal that's right but let me which i believe i believe reopening will actually help the government because i don't believe he's been able to have been removed because they have been unable to secure indian travel documents so we're not asking we've never asked the board to grant him asylum we're not asking this court to grant him asylum we're simply asking the court to allow him to have a hearing for them or under the convention against torture  we're signatories to that and he can't be sent back to nepal if there's a clear probability that he would be willing to look so people here the gorilla we're talking about  the overstayed and he had some family people here who had a restaurant he worked in the restaurant for low wages and long hours and slept in a room with what six other people and  then he got married had two children born in this country and then his wife started to beat him up used the issue to be he says in a tauriel prepared his first asylum application and he was unrepresented at the asylum interview and then he says he was too scared to attend the initial hearing before an immigration judge and so he didn't show up and  his chronic post traumatic stress disorder caused by the way he's been treated and the overall feeling of hopelessness and but he's never had a hearing and i know that i know that i know this i don't know why why you couldn't work something out with the government maybe they' question under the law is that the board's not abused its discretion here in denying the motion to reopen we don't know who this man is quite simply and we don't know who this man is because he is inconsistent as to his identity specifically his name and his country of citizenship we don't know whether he's kumar chettri from india or whether he is predominant todd from the paul and he has done nothing this court but the immigration authorities in terms of his first asylum application that he filed from actively the immigration officer found that he lied and referred him to an immigration judge the individual and again i don't want representation at first taking him at his word he had a notarial notaro yeah in two thousand and one he moved to reopen and he had a very and we have any reason to doubt that not you know and and tarring those corrupt our whole system don't think they seem to see margins are and the government knows about it for years and years and years and yet we the second claim to india represented by a licensed attorney in that was really rather specific it was over a single spaced page explaining exactly and precisely what happened to him represented by an attorney a this court subsequently rather detailed statement as to all that allegedly occurred to him in india now we're up to two thousand and eight he alleges that his family was murdered in nepal this is the first time well a few thousand let me file that but he claims in two thousand and eight he his family was murdered and paul he submits several documents none none of which were corroborated not only in under the boards under the justice department gives us regulations but in any manner in the board makes note of saying it wasn't under under the regulation or in any other manner claiming that he was that his family was murdered in a some it's a newspaper article it was curious about the newspaper article your honor in the board points this out is that the individual or the petitioner was allegedly in nepal when his family was murdered which of course contradicts his claims to this court and he claims well the the article was inaccurate in that comes right back to the abuse of discretion standard of the article lose what the newspaper article he claims was inaccurate because it has him in the paul at the time when he claims and he continues to claim that he was in the united states at that time so in the knowledge that the newspaper article that he submitted to bolster his claim is inaccurate we also have a police report allegedly from the paul that was mailed to him in nepal well it was in the united states it's not clear how he obtained it he makes no effort to explain that it at the end of the day what the court is looking at in its reviewing for an abuse of discretion did the board abused its discretion in fine in denying this motion to reopen where the petitioner has to prove his identity under the regs to make a promise fashion showing other he's eligible for asylum and we have no idea who he is and he's admitted he admitted lying to immigration authorities at least twice in the past once with an atari or once with an attorney if we credit him completely insane he's from the paul then worse it was then we're sitting with a situation where we have a police report that was mailed to him in nepal in need he obtained it even though he is somewhere in california and we also have a newspaper article that apollo when his family was murdered when in fact he claims again that he was in california there is simply no abuse of discretion by the board for finding that this evidence was not sufficient to meet the bare prime fashion eligibility for morning threw myself on the mercy of this corps he is seeking asylum the government largess and he has lied at least twice maybe more he also know he had an immigration court hearing scheduled and he was afraid to go he had the ocean the due process he skipped it this is not somebody this is not a difficult case run for the government it's just little or anything that can be done for this man who has lied repeatedly over  have removed him to india as as the underlying order removal order states if there are no further questions your honor will submit on the government's brief and ask the court to deny the station for you what about his children or children i understand a united states citizens as is his former wife now i don't know certainly wh what the custody situation is but since they have every right to stay here they are citizens as his former wife has he committed any crimes while he's been in this country other than lying to immigration officials not that i'm aware of we've stated that the news that that aspect of the or an aspect of the newspaper article is inaccurate we've we've noted that in the in the i know but him in the back you know well but i think what you stated is it's accurate that those people were killed and that he's their family but it's inaccurate that he was standing so can you really have it both ways well if we if a newspaper article is reported nexus to those people and you know it's not disputed that those people warmer were murdered but if they're not his family you know for me to claim that i am you know somehow a grave because certain people were murdered and i have no association with them that's problematic when you know a great you have to you have to have a nexus well his if he is not that person then it's not relevant that does people were murdered correct correct but there there is also his identity document in the record and professor marks has looked at the at his data and what he said and found it very consistent with his in depth knowledge of paul and the issues that have gone on again i think this boils down to the issue should he get a hearing not whether or not whether the threshold that he should be granted asylum already he had a chance at a hearing and he didn't show up that's true but as judge preggers and had noted the psychoanalyst has evaluated him as a completely broken man so it's true we're not we're not saying that he didn't lie where were it what we're arguing is simply that he should get a release at this point in time