persecutor bar the judge effectively declared during the hearings that petitioners persecution claims were not at issue this denied detention had the opportunity to rehabilitate his claims regarding the persecution he suffered that ended up being the basis for the judge's denial of asylum i had a different question when i read the transcript i had the impression that the judge walked in there and said it doesn't look like there's going to be a credibility problem because the asylum officer thought that it was credible but then the cross examination changed the judge's mind and he said credibility is a big issue and the invited counsel to bring out what he wanted to on redirect examination and invited a supplemental brief on it so so i i don't i understand why that's a due process violation i have a couple of things that the credibility issues that came up were regarding the fact cut him off and said let's get on with the persecutor bar in fact he said during redirect the issue is not whether your life would be difficult if you returned to algeria i don't speak for the circuit service but i don't believe there really contesting that the issue today is whether or not rehabilitate himself during the hearing because they say when they discuss the credibility issue they discuss it only in terms of the persecutor bar so if you look at the v a s opinion at the end it says oh ok so petitioner was on notice this due process cla since all of the countries with asylum laws have copied them from that you were convention francis was so more a heart attack if you went to france if he really was scared that the islamic terrorists were going to get him in i don't see why i went back tell the jury instead of applying for asylum in france well he couldn't you know as i think i believe you testified you couldn't manage to get an asylum application together she was living on the streets he didn't exactly he appellant had lived for two years in the country where he claims he was persecuted and the court there found that his claims weren't undermined and i think that the courts consistent that that going back or  staying doesn't necessarily undermine him a persecution claim and there's no evidence that he didn't he there's no evidence that he didn't face the fear of persecution while he was living in algiers for two years in fact the evidence shows that he was just trying to find a way out another part of the country his brother in law is a high ranking officer in the military which is contrary to what petitioners position was military which is a concept that was basically used as cannon fodder to drive out terrorist groups know briefly mentioned that credibility may have been an issue regarding the prosecution claims in their stack section they didn't actually argue it in their legal section in fact their legal briefs solely concerns the persecutor bar so it wasn't until the immigration you call a man a liar who knows his credibility to this you no matter what you call them a liar about well first of all this case is distinguishable from cases where there's lying and evidence of lying there was clearly a problem with the translator abilities a po that there were definitely some instances where the question being answered obviously wasn't the question being asked secondly the even the government's witness recognized that in arabic we're translating if there's an issue with plural so that was making petitioners testimony regarding the persecutor bar very difficult because it was unclear whether it was him that committed the atrocities as as part of the military or whether it was just unit so that it all came up in  the key issue is the due process argument because there is no evidence of a due process violation and no prejudice if there even if there were and given that the  mean the government argued i would have thought the answer to that would have been the u s was no the answer is yes i believe that the government argued credibility at the hearing persecutor bar does that mean the answer is no i think inherent in that is a credibility argument because because if you were to believe the asylum officer and if you were to believe the petitioners testimony before the ar statements before the asylum officer the persecutor bar would apply now in essence any argument by the petitioner in opposition to that raises the credibility issue because the petitioners testimony at the immigration hearing was contrary to what he told the asylum officer i would have thought there credible testimony where because the point is the credible testimony by the petitioner going in i think the service this petition position before the immigration hearing was that yes the petitioner appears to have testified credibly before the immigration judge i mean but issues surrounding the persecutor bar and said nothing about the adverse credibility determination based of the asylum the petitioner said nothing yes wouldn't the government argue that that had been relieved that the i just help you know help me here how do i get i'm telling you i've got a problem with this it appears to me that you did that the government did not raise this issue before the i a e a and unquestionably if the reverse were true the government would be in here claiming that the petitioner had waived an argument why hasn't the government waived why hasn't got ok you're asking why the government hasn't made the the hurt the credibility issue in support of the because well as a preliminary matter the the let's let's focus on the real point here the immigration judge found and had made an adverse credibility finding the petitioner doesn't challenge that adverse credibility finding on substantial on a substantial evidence argument the petitioner whole argument on adverse credibility is the due process alleged due process violation once that due process violation is found not to have occurred there is no argument either at the b s a or before the court frankly as to the substantial evidence to support the adverse credit your position is that action by them relieves the government of the responsibility to argue support for adverse credibility these are the asylum before the i think so i mean in the sense that the government can't i shouldn't i don't think should be expected to argue in opposition to an argument that wasn't made when we mix very i understand how this plays out and goes to the asylum officer the asylum officer believes him at that point credibility is not an issue goes into the hearing before the i j yeah i g s to is i don't think credibility going to be an issue and then after cross the i j a says looks like credibility is an issue and i got it right so far yes go with well you know now what mistake that i make in the sense that the attention my questions now yes because otherwise i forget what i'm trying to focus on credibility becomes an issue if i recall right after the cross before the i j a descent right that's correct ok then if i recall correctly your side won the government won and the i j a said adverse credibility finding bin i don't believe the guy that's correct is that right that's correct so at that point it's his problem to appeal to the b i a and then say there wasn't a substantial basis on the record as a whole for the adverse credibility finding absolutely because he'd already lost on it if i got that right that's correct your and that's the guy you go to be ok and he does appeal the embers credibility fine but not on the basis that there wasn't substantial evidence for it on the basis that he didn't get a fair chance to address correct and you responded to that that's right ok but you did win on credibility for the view right in the end and that was when substantial evidence to support adverse credibility was never appealed ok now i understand the timeline thanks and i would point out on this new process point you're ours that petitioner has had multiple opportunities because even frankly although it's do you think it would be waived even in this event even in the briefing to this court to explain what exactly the prejudice was because there's been no explanation of any prejudice i mean frankly there's no violation simply not even not even identified in general in generality which wouldn't be sufficient but it's not it's not identified at all you may well be correct and that the finding on incredibility  death threats from the g i his uncle's terrorist organization if we find that indeed he should have been found credible i'm not saying that we are going to do that were never company by any action any harm that affected the petitioner and in fact for the i think on this point the key is that one of the keys is that for the last four years prior to leaving algeria had no harm no instance that was there was simply nothing he lived for two years while two years in the military and had no action taken against in there from ninety seven to ninety nine and then from ninety nine through two thousand may have i think two thousand and one he lived in algiers without any problems and he lived with a brother in law who was an officer how long the military how long did he live in algeria between the time his uncle expressed his great disappointment and his nephew and i thought that he was going to kill him addition there's the travel to france which undermines the the claim as well of a well founded fear of persecution and that he had an opportunity he went to a country where there's clearly an asylum possibility in and one minute i will try to be quick so the idea that he lived in for years without any persecution is is wrong and when he finished serving in the military he found out that friends who had also served in the military had returned to their home hearing briefs responding to the persecutor bar and so the idea that we waived the right to reach the credibility issue and we didn't even know that it was an issue until the judges immigration judges decision and i'm out of time thank you