to look at the ids decision to make its decision here the decision was basically denied for the primary reason of an adverse credibility determination primarily based on implausibility and thereafter the i j a assuming the female petitioner she is the niece of the former head of the k g b of armenia who was murdered prior to him being murdered she had learned through overhearing a conversation at her home or at a relative's home that you know we do know the blowing activities it's not necessarily on point to the instant matter since the petitioners didn't know that was president of is on point and there is nothing necessarily directly on point to the situation but what we do have here is we have agents of the government actively lack of the legitimate prosecutorial purpose for a government's harassment and interference of the person's life name with your sexual assault beatings hospitalizations harassment on numerous occasions surveillance there is a presumption that the motive is political completely different realm they had information that politically damaging to the government that's not necessarily a crime in another itself it's not a legitimate prosecutorial purpose of imputed attitude political opinion i would argue that it is first of all th testified throughout the hearing that they were a political now they also testified that they were unaware of the contents of this suppose a dossier that was in her uncle's possession prior to him being murdered don't even even know if the dock even exist do it we don't know if it exists but the hardly you clients of relatives there are very few remaining the majority of their relatives are in the united states now they do have their children shown there the children after the first instance of harm the record shows that after the first  instance of harm they immediately move their children to elderly infirm and i believe the petitioner referred to her as an invalid relative who is not very able to walk who lived in a distant province immediately to avoid any sort of suspicion or any association with  family and they have remained without significant contact with their family ever since the first instance and back in one thousand nine hundred sixty other than that other than that and that is disabled that's taking care of the two children there's really no she has the same last name when she was born as her uncle later on she changed her last names and she changed it again when she got married so the children the government and the government hasn't necessarily gone after the children but that's not really dispositive the people that are sargent's teaching to the united states trying to seek refuge for his family in the meantime his wife's only real relative that was remaining i believe it was her father passed away and he went to help his wife out at that point and after he returned he suffered further harm she suffered further harm the entire family suffered further harm so even if that may have wiped out something that happened they were still subjected to specific specified attacks directly targeting them for something other for in a political opinion that the government was in puting because the fact that they were able to travel i do believe that's relevant but as a blanket statement to throw the entire claim away i think is completely disingenuous i believe the judge here the main problem the judge had was the main problem  outside the country they would be out of harm's way so you would think that if the story is true the one thing they would not allow these people to do is to leave the country where they could publish these documents your honor it with all due respect i believe that's based upon speculation there's nothing here to support that theory they they've made it their captors they're here there's nothing to refute any of the harm that they had there's just the judge expect the i j a speculation from left field thank you guys managed to get out so therefore i don't believe anything else that you're saying there's not substantial evidence supporting that it was it was speculation and they were driving he came back and left again it's just speculation no that's not speculation that's a fact the fact that he chaman he laughed but there's also another fact in there that which is he was harmed upon credible to her detailed testimony and so did he and under the regulations all you need a detailed credible testimony to be able to establish a claim for persecution because persecutors don't give you enough attesting to their persecution it's very difficult to satisfy the refugee laws in this country without having to take a person's claim they are not armed with a document that puts them in the position that they're in they're here feeling persecuted they have one of those here who could've provided the supporting affidavit that's correct but they didn't know they did not your honor  it says the proper basically is that the respondents cousins also came to the united states they fled armenia they apply for asylum about two or three years ago and they were both granted actually it was three individuals they were all granted asylum based on the same sort of offense  of me and by the united states government and again based upon their relationship with this individual who was murdered the head of the key to be so just based on that i know it's not doesn't per se you know require grant of the respondents change but the relevance is that if the u s government grants   to an individual based on the certain set of facts and then you have someone else a relative who is applying for asylum again based on the same set of facts based on the family relationship i think some kind of a concern it is some kind of inconsistency for one family member to be granted asylum and the other one to be denied that the judge deny whereas the proffer the proffer was basically about the the you know what the work often means it means to basically submit testimony on behalf of somebody is my understanding of the word  testify in court is to have that person affirmatively sign a waiver of confidentiality regarding their silence claims that's putting them in jeopardy after being here safe in a safe haven and possibly jeopardizing their official claim there's no indication of that in the record but that is the common practice in the immigration courts i don't know why they were not called i was not the trial counsel i can only specs yes to that but i believe that the family members faced with that situation and faced with the decision that they may have to waive their own claims and put themselves in harm's way probably were not willing to waive the confidentiality of their silent application and come to court to testify based on that i say they're not reasonably available for us where you are from these recordings were regarding the song correct your honor but in order for them to testify or to even mention any circumstances of their application lay have to sign a confidentiality agreement basically allowing the government to get another bite at whether their claim is true or not and if something comes up and it was inconsistent or for some reason something gets misstated asylum can be revoked i think that takes us out of the realm of the new easily available witness and is also di on credibility but i didn't see that the government argued there was no protective grounds here the government's position that there is no protected ground available here well if they were if the feeling that they were credible is their protector grounds the immigration judge in  his decision is only stated conclusory conclusion early that the petitioners have not met their burden of establishing by credible direct and specific evidence if they experience past persecution based upon any of the alleged protected bases  so the gov that the immigration judge did not specifically addressed in more detail whether there was a protected ground so it's still it's not the government's position here if we thought that there was not a protect