ptrace who's under the weather right now so i come i come up to speed very quickly and i'll do my best for you this morning mr danny are i'm sure the united states and june the twenty ninth of two thousand and twelve he filed an affirmative asylum application with the asylum office which was then referred to the immigration of corps via a notice to appear issued at april the twenty fourth of two thousand and thirteen those cases happen very quickly mr dna are requested an expedited hearing before the immigration judge the immigration judge's decision denying his application close cylon was issued in november of two thousand and thirteen and the board's decision dismissing the appeal was issued in may of two thousand and fifteen and he's a young twenty five year old male native and citizen of kyrgyzstan he's currently married and expecting a child by his wife who is here in the united states with him mr vanier entered the u s as a j y i'm on a j one visa as a cultural exchange student and overstayed again he quickly filed an affirmative asylum application with than his one year of entry into the us your owners this is a case where we look at it and we just wonder what more does the judge or the board actually expect the judge's findings and the board's findings were erroneous they were overly burtons burdensome and tedious in this case they were  no fabrication of documentation this is the kind of a case where you don't necessarily look to see what is wrong to nit pick with what is wrong with the evidence in this case he testified mr vanier testified he testified extensively he testified in great detail about the persecution that he suffered the judge and the board had issue with the fact that she during his testimony at the hearing at his individual hearing before immigration judg car here in chicago that he referred to a speech with switch bird and spawned a lot of the persecution that he suffered that speech was not mentioned in his asylum application obviously a lot more is going to come out in the matter of you know a three or four hour individual hearing or trial what is listed as we all know is a very small section of an application he listed the persecution on the application he testified credibly although an adverse credibility finding was reached there's no explanation in the judge or the board's decisions that explain why it wasn't credible it's just the only issue is that it was not on the application again that doesn't make it not credible there was no reference to a direct lie and in addition he provided corroborating evidence and again the judge and the board seem to not be satisfied with that but there was no proof or indication that the documentation was fabricated it just wasn't to the specification or the satisfaction of the job or the board but again as we know it's very difficult an asylum cases to obtain these sorts of evidence a lot of asylum applicants in fact have no evidence other than their own testimony in this case danny our head when asked in this case controlled the political party is part of the ruling governing coalition at this point and during the revenues right that is true or just doesn't seem like the kind of case where somebody you know fled the country under cover of darkness leaving your everything behind you can't get access to the evidence well your honor it was difficult for him to obtain evidence and he did the best that he could obtaining that evidence to speak to your question about is the party that american party is in fact the ruling party and i actually read extensively myself on line yesterday i'm if you just do a quick google search can quickly determine that there is still strong tension and although the party is in power there's a lot of fighting and opposition still occurring so i don't think that just because his party is now in power that he would be safe regardless of that documents obviously it was just more developed during the hearing than it was in his initial asylum application but that does not render an applicant to be deemed not to be credible and i see that my time is up so i will rest  six months later the revolution occurred and that he was forcibly and i'm officially interrogated because during the revolution in the fall and chaos now compare that to his testimony where he says that the revolution occurred before ten and then he joined the a and that this was sort of the proximate cause or this is this was the motivating factor for all the following alleged incidents that occurred after that all the all the interactions with the large interactions with the police and parties and whatnot but he failed to include that that result is what activities and secondly it's not the only thing but if you lie down again in that region application he says he joined that party in october two thousand and nine and he also said again that he was forcibly and unofficially interrogated  due to the able to as intent revolution and resulting chaos and that's totally different from what he said two during his merits hearing to the immigration judge so again it's not just the omission it's the inconsistency it's the omission and there change your name said december two thousand and eleven he said he changed it to escape country and the immigration judge noted that that some of the documents he submitted used his his new name before so i mean there is some progress but again they gave it less adventurous way because we don't have we don't have we have a chain of custody we have no evidence indicating how he received it or we don't even have a statement from his brothers allegedly had leg broken you know we a thank you your honor as i just have one quick point on rebuttal as counsel for the government stated in describing a piece of the testimony regarding the fact that the opposing party member would travel five to six hours in order to visit him seemed quote implausible that's exactly and precisely our issue with this case is that the only explanation that we've been things given by the immigration judge or the board is that it's impossible but no real explanation as to why and i think the square and city q versus a number of other cases are repetitively held that the petitioner is entitled to  full rational explanations as to why the testimony or that evidence did not actually go to the heart of the claim and explanation as to why it is not being held credible are being held deemed impossible and with that honour's we would just ask that this case be remanded such that the evidence can properly be reviewed for a proper credibility determination