shared with the court what i filed this morning that mr christic is terminal he has brain cancer he's dying so his last wish and my job today is to clear his name that's why we're here today we certainly could opt for just dying in peace and not going forward with this petition but what he doesn't want what has happened to him and his family for the last four years to happen to another person and we're not even talking about what happened boston what happened in boston was horrific there's no question about that but what i want the court to look at today is how do we go from several receipts for  and his very minor role to being characterized as somebody who committed and is part of the genocide bar the persecution bar i mean is for ever barred from getting any relief i think something that is amiss here is that we have repeatedly talked about this pre sentence report and what the us attorney says let me add to this the reason it was shocking to see a decision by the i j or to be a that he had no relief available wasn't that mr christie was thinking he is now going to be subject to remove all that was made clear the shocking part was that he would be barred from any really he was hoping that beside asylum withholding or cat that he would have his day in court to show the equities of his life town so you realize that we are not making the national decision today i really are reviewing the agency decision and so what is our standard of review here your honor has to decide whether or not substantial evidence supports the finding that his involvement with fuel accusations and here is enough to meet that burden that he is subject to the p asking us to say for example there's the adverse credibility determination right correct and we could only set that aside if there were two things one legal error in that making that decision or it's not supported by substantial evidence and if you're if you're following up on judge robinson's question are the standard of review for substantial evidence is pretty tough i understand your honor but let's look at the be a decision because this is what the court is looking at let's look at the credibility issue that's before the court the credibility issue that was decided by the judge heavily was relied upon this expert testimony that the government brought they brought mr macqueen to testify that it's not plausible that he didn't know that this fuel ammunition was going to be used to massacre the muslims who had been rounded up even mr mcqueen says even the board says i and i point to the record out tool so let's look at this together because we are looking at the issue of credibility even mr mcqueen said that he stated that the order for the fuel would likely have been communicated to someone senior to the respondent that's the pitcher and that it was possible that the respondent was not told how to feel was imputing knowledge to my client by an expert who clearly says it's possible you know the i j a is entitle to draw a reasonable inferences from the evidence that he hears that's credible and he found mr mcqueen's report in testimony to be to be credible but not a weight on it your honor we're not addressing whether mr i don't dispute mr mcmahon mcqueen is credible i think is credible  he's an expert but to tie these inferences it even bothered the dissenting board member this is roger paul who's a very conservative board member out of the courts where with his decisions he even goes on to say while the respond is morally culpable he's not probably found subject to persecution bar because his on challenge actions were merely peripheral to the persecution that occurred similar to military corporate prepares meals for troops he knows are committing a trust account so that just shows there was a difference of opinion regarding the effect of the testimony can that meet the substantial ever did stand think it's more than i think what roger pollies saying is more than different minds can differ in opinion he's talking about the burden of proof he's talking about what was presented here but was unpublished they decided to cases that they published regarding to bosnians one was a commander who was in charge of two hundred dollars troops and he was clearly found to be subject to the prosecution bar where he participated in genocide and he was barred from or really the other person was involved in this secret police or a special police in bos involvement was great how does the board go from very little evidence i mean there's five thousand pages of documents here but when you look at the judge's finding your honor in may and september of two thousand and seventeen the board decides to use other published decisions kelso what was your answer to church pius this question regarding whether or not you are asserting legal error yes we are what's the legal error illegal air is doubt instead of looking at the evidence under the substantial evidence through the that the board did it novo review here of the judge's decision they even decided that when they looked at the ammunition receipts and they look at the fuel receipts they were not even convinced that that the few receipts were any evidence that we judge would have used let me ask you this when i guess what i had in mind about legal air do you in all question the way in which the board or the him to be subject to the persecution persecutor bar i mean at the get go at the get go well it only takes just some evidence to invoke the persecutor bar it's a very low standard and then the and in kumar and and i believe that he did meet his burden that he wasn't involved that any evidence stop was raised by mr mcqueen did not directly impacting no matter how many pages of testimony no matter how many conviction records that brought from the international court it doesn't matter so not for personal involvement i gather it's your position just because he was back at the headquarters or whatever it's called i can't  you said to record here yes just because you're he was back at the office let's just put it that right right he just signed these requisitions yes i'm there imputing to him that he should have heard he should have known or he knew what these fuel i mean issues were being used for and that's a stretch when they be i clearly if you look in that case where people were directly involved they had command and control over soldiers but counsel wasn't there evidence in the record that at his quarters that was all that was being discussed was that this mission that the fuel was being used for this mission and so why isn't it  reasonable to infer his knowledge if he was a headquarters and there was all of this discussion about what the few was going to be used for why wouldn't it be rational to assume that he was the one who ordered the fuel and so he knew based on all of this conversation what it was going to be used for what's wrong with that inference there's nothing wrong with that in france if you imagine the headquarters is like this courtroom where everybody is here and everybody hears what everybody is saying but headquarters this is a building he's in charge of the motor for the cars it's in a different location it's a stretch it's a lot to assume that because it was discussed at headquarters a lowly clerk who is conscripted into this my client believed he had no rack he was conscripted into the military into this horrible war because he had education educational background he was told that you're going to be in charge of this unit all of us at the evidence in the given that's what he believed that's what his job was he had one person below him that answer to him not a one hundred not thirty and he was counter signing these receipts came and you have to understand this is during the fog of war there are legitimate operations going on on all sides and to come in twenty years later and say you should have known or you were involved or it's likely you're heard it's a stretch when we have these all these other cases where clearly people hands were bloody but with the murder of these other people why don't you save some time for  basically constructive presence well i don't think there was constructive present he wasn't it wasn't clear where the where the where the genocide was taking place well i don't think you have to be there and i don't think that any of the reports cases say that world court cases soldiers you know was an intern integral to the process and i would say that soldiers can work on an empty stomach but the trucks in this case did not move without the fuel and they didn't kill these people without the weapons and that was his job and i disagree that there is not that there is no evidence in this in this record there are two separate pieces of evidence and this has nothing to do with the expert who testified but they are the expert did testify that the v r s kept very very specific assisting is the fact that what he did was interger to the persecution absolutely and you can tell there is evidence in the record that popovich who is considered the architect of this genocide was overheard on a phone call screaming about needing five hundred liters of of fuel or he couldn't continue with his mission very shortly after this petitioner signed a recreation for five hundred liters which they said was in a new very unusual amount of  fuel and in fact very many of the requisitions went above and beyond the normal use of those few own weapons during this period so you're drawing some sort of inference because of the amount but what you're really looking at is what he signed in terms of the value to this distance so you're saying even though you feed the soldiers that's not actively participating or this court has found that's why we are you back it's ok but but in this case i would say that your focus that they needed the trucks to transport the victims will they transported them to the place that they killed them and then they use the weapons that were requisitioned to slaughter well  what was it i can't remember i'm sorry what was the record what were the requisitions for the requisitions were for few fuel and for up weapons and he was the chief technical services officer he had and  it's in the record both and in his letter of promotion and in the record from the p r s his rank was made to lieutenant colonel and you can see that the people who held this you know each had that before and after him each had that rank they were signed requisition slips and there were as of warneke brigade members who were prosecuted at the international tribunal who testified that it was general knowledge he in fact testified himself to an admission he attempted to walk back that he had heard them over you know speaking about this but this was a this was a mission that took place over over a period of a couple of weeks it was like the testimony it at the international tribunal was that it was generally celebrated you know as a great success it's unbelievable that he or at least the immigration i found it wasn't believable he wouldn't have at least knew that right yeah virtually the same yes but is that still does that still mean there's a knowledge sufficient to satisfy the integral component of that we talk about income are and if if you have the architect of genocide screaming that he needs five hundred leaders leaders of fuel to complete this mission which is the genocide and you have somebody who is the chief technical officer whose job it is to requisition that then you would his would signature necessary for the fuel and the ammunition to be released there's evidence in the record that says the only place that the fuel and weapons came out of was the headquarters where he worked and that his job was to sign the requisition orders so and he had a supervisor right there's no evidence here that he did i mean you know obviously must have had a supervisor but he is he's pretty high a major lieutenant colonel is a pretty high position and he was chief of this division so i'm sure he had you know in i'm not familiar the way the military works generally but i imagine he had some supervisor but it was his job to sign these requisition orders and there's also evidence in the record that you know during this period of time there was an unusual unusual demand for fuel and weapons and if you were in charge of requisitioning supplies that would raise some sort of question and he admitted they were here for the russians it would raise some sort of question you wouldn't you would wonder why i mean you're responsible your signature is on these papers it you're in the military your signature on these people you were held responsible for what is going out of the headquarters would it make a difference if his signature wasn't the only security signature necessary to make sure that these requisition are made i don't i don't think so i mean there might i mean there are very many instances where two signatures are required but i don't think that that would necessarily you know have an impact on his knowledge about you know the of what was happening with this you know the fuel and the weapons i'd like to address if if the court doesn't any questions i'd like to address are a lot of questions would go with me to the address credibility my colleague said that it was based on the expert testimony and that isn't actually true the board relied on three separate things one evidence of his knowledge to whether he lied about his training and whether he carried a gun and the rd was his minimisation of his job and his responsibilities the the st one i think the way i tell you you know it was within his rights to find that his lack of knowledge in this case you know his claim of like knowledge was not  believable st of all i would say and something that the petitioner has not explained this man came in and filed a refugee application and put his address someplace else and tonight his military involvement if he were not concerned about those things and about what that would show he would have just said i served in the military is in a low position and he would have put all of that but he continued to lie about that all and was prosecuted for that that misstatement was let me ask you this let's assume that we would agree with you that that the credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence for the reasons you're just going through what effect does that have on the other issues that are in that that are raised in the case well the other issue is the persecutor part in the genocide bar and as as you previously noted there's a very low standard for initially triggering that bar that is the evidence has to indicate and it doesn't mean that i read things that look like statement is it just it's a bit i want to say you seem to be suggesting that the knowledge was sufficient his knowledge of this and signing off on the requisition his knowledge his position you know what his actions facilitated which was the movement of these trucks they they moved the men and boys from one area to another where they were slaughtered and without the fuel they would have been able to do that without the weapons they would not have been able to kill close to eight thousand dollars people in the short period of time that they did so it's not just his knowledge it's that he facilitated the movement and the murder you an demonstrates why this situation here what that's a difficult question to answer because each one of these each one of these cases is very specific to its own facts and  yes exactly and i think you have to look at the facts in this case because the board did apply the personal involvement and purposeful assistance he there is no question that he was purposely  purposefully involved in this he was recruited into the military he accepted the promotion he went to work every day he was there the records from the v a or a show that he served on very crucial days when a lot of very specific the people were killed in several different places and he was on duty and signed requisition orders for fuel you know that was coincidental with those incidents so i think that the evidence does show that there was purposeful involvement and also do you agree that we view all this under the substantial evidence test the yes the findings of fact are my colleagues said that the board had to use a substantial evidence test for the facts and that's not actually grew our use of stand you use the board uses the clear error standard and the court uses a substantial evidence standard for determining the facts in the case so the underlying facts the court would look at for substantial got the better the x the level of his knowledge to be a determination of fact the level of his knowledge would be a determination of fact yes i would agree to that yes and i think that there's more than substantial evidence in here i mean starting with the fact that he has denied his denied his rank denied you know signing things or being responsible he denied his residence to get  because he knew that if he were it that if he lived in swore nic that there were questions would arise about where he served his you know where his military service occurred here and then he denied his military service and i think that those are all you know things that can be used to gauge his credibility and can be used against him and then you know going on it's very difficult in the context i have as my colleague said there's a fog of war how could he have gone to work over a period of weeks in and out of headquarters where they were moving there's evidence that on one day on july th when he came into the headquarters this you know it  shows that he worked that day that there was a truck of muslim men and boys that they could not move the night before parked in front of the headquarters i mean you know with the evidence that this was celebrated as a great victory for the serbs it's you know in that context i think that the evidence more than substantially supports the adverse credibility and in that case you know when you look at the persecutor he clearly the burden shifted to call shouting that if he did not get additional fuel his mission would come to a halt with christine he wasn't on the phone call but but if you ask me a question about whether his actions were integral he had to supply in order for that mission to to continue i mean this is a this is according to the law trying to lieutenant colonel who was who was you know the head of that operation in order for that to continue he had to sign a requisition to give them a few weapons i know but that's kind of a big leap between him saying that and the petitioner knowing that that was the end result and unfortunately history has shown us that you don't need fuel to take people and slaughter them in an area right so really what you're talking about is what's his knowledge with regard to connecting all the dots that's that's sort of the fuel but the end result i would just i would just agree with you in one sense you don't need fuel but they did transport them so in this case they needed it because in this case they transported them to areas where it was easier to to kill them and so they did use it in this instance it may be that in other instances the fuel was an important because it it fueled other trucks and other thanks but in this case and again i go back to my answer about very fact specific in this case they transported these men and boys to very specific locations where they killed them and and the fuel was integral to that operation and my time has expired if the court does not have any further somebody else that was going to those fields were to murdered those innocent people i understand the cost behind all this we don't want people who have committed genocide and trust cities to be in the united states the government has talked about how he lied about his military service to come here but there's evidence in the record that was presented before the criminal judge in the u s district court that talked about a lot of people both on the muslim side the serbian side the crowd side when they were seeking refugee status all over the united the world including united states were guided to say don't talk about where you lived don't talk about being anywhere near any military service and he pled guilty to that he took responsibility for that and the u s district court judge acknowledged that and they placed him on probation that that's not disputed but to say that he lied about where he lived and