the far more interesting issue is about the relationship between two young refugees from the r c but kohli and for months what was their relationship and what was it relationship number one the decision is based on a false premise about the relationship that is contrary to the evidence related lee point number two the decision is based on the i j s improper conjecture and speculation about the relationship which is drawn from the false fronts and finally number three the decision gives improper weight to the relationship without giving proper regard to the very extensive and consistent evidence supporting the polies claims persecution torture in the city let me return to point number one decision a someone grudgingly it seems accepted the fact that they were not married but instead concluded well they were married but they in effect it was a  t to a marriage because they were partners in life and politics that is wrong that is not with the in evidence or testimony reveal the testimony was systems that they were engaged in a white romell so counsel counsel judge was apart from the credibility issue what is the relevance of testimony that the findings on point and your argument on point just seems to meet substantially irrelevant it sounds more like a romance novel than a court of law i a relationship an i j who made a conclusion that the asylum applicant couldn't be believed in large part because of an inconsistent statements between the asylum african and her mother about relevant to understanding the party as it's relevant to the background it's relevant to what is relevant to be written i would say it's not serial your honor that is the distinction i w make so let me make sure i understand what you're saying you're saying that this business of untruthful and one thing untruthful and all things and you're talking about the untruthful and one thing we're starting off with and i just order it as something to be fact that bleeding across that by j b might well have found that there was persecution as well as a threat  future persecution x stopped for where the i j a delete that they hadn't been truthful about the relationship whatever else is not proper for the i j a to rule in that regard and maybe that's with the sessions that after having reached that conclusion that he didn't believe the relationship he's very good that that was the basis for all else that he decided because he didn't have the relationship did not believe the corroborating testimony from her monts he did not believe in any of the documentary evidence was that it included an arrest warrants including membership cards in the opposition political party including statements from brothers and friends of the d r c that he had been persecuted arrested and tortured included the country conditions same all of that all of that was disregarded because he didn't believe the relationship now that is also been a career i correct you on one point that i don't think he said he didn't believe this other evidence i think what he did is he said he was going to disregard it because of the credibility issue with the relationship i can't recall exactly how he stated it but he did not give it credence because it was offered by somebody who did not find credible going back to the unit rare zero decision where the marital relationship testimony was so heavily relied upon and the i j in rejecting her credibility this court said consideration of all relevant factors which is what the real i act requires consideration of all relevant factors cannot mean ignoring the claimants including the applicants testimony about her reasons for fear of persecution in the objective circumstances in the a country therefore while it is appropriate for the i j a to consider your rarest statements upon entry as a factor in its credibility determination it alone does not rise to the level of substantial thirteen that the agency can ignore the documentary evidence and reject in silent claim solely on credibility grounds little i mean assuming that this relationship testimonies of far afield or somewhat afield from the question of whether he had a valid asylum claim based on his experience in nigeria is it are you saying that there is not a case where somebody could have been on sort of can general matters so a basis for untruthful that the idea just completely disregard their testimony  i think that there could be such a case i think as i was saying to judge was there i'm not saying that this was not relevant to the credibility terminations i think it is somewhat relevant but i think what the problem with it is is that if it is included it was relied upon to the exclusion of the great weight of the rests of the testimony so that is one of the major problems i see with it but as i was prepared to review the basic conclusion that you couldn't believe this relationship is also very flawed because the they simply concluded that they had a relationship that they that they these two saw each other rarely she lived with her parents her father was opposed to the relationship there's no indication that they have a sort of an american style social media relationship with their friends and they would go out to clubs this is a con these is because shock relationship were to call it was several years older than this woman and they didn't know that much about each other yet the i j concluded you have this kind of relate you presented yourself as having this kind of relationship and if you had to kind of relationship here's the conjecture if you had that kind of relationship surely you would have known all these details about your friends and the harm you each suffered with the r c and because you didn't know those things or couldn't remember the i don't believe you well that's a neat trick you you can't you construct this false relationship and then disbelieve the relationship and call  the parties liars after you've constructed the relationship in the st place so not only is it not supported by evidence if it wasn't fair i would like to reserve a few minutes or for the attorney general this case is about credibility petitioner's failure to challenge the demeanor finding and the finding that parts of his claim and concerning his travel to the united states were i should be fatal to the petition for a view even assuming that failure was not just positive position or is not pointed to anything on the record to compel a different result but in a top level what is implausible about his travel to the united states well your honor in his initial credible fear interviews which there were three he testified that he saw her mantz in brazil that they met up in brazil then they both testified at the merits hearing that they met up and close to ric that they both left brazil on the same day and when questioned about this inconsistency he became a base of a non responsive much of what in terms of the immigration judge supposedly manufacturing  serious relationship that came from petitioner during his credible fear interviews when he was under and he says that they lived together in d r c and that she knew his kids and acted as a mother to his kids and that's the thread that he presented there and then he completely drops and their testimonies are inconsistent with each other at the merits hearing and again that unchallenged demeanor finding that i believe in the reply  notes are not reliable and that we shouldn't rely on those do you have any case law that says it's appropriate for us to rely on those credible fear interview notes and i do i did just twenty eight dollars j s the circuit published  case i believe it was published but on that of facts but also even if i believe petitioners urging this court to adopt a test similar to that of the th circuit in the ad and even if the court did look at those factors in conjunction with if it's a paraphrasing and not in complete sentences last reliable here we have question answer format is in full and complete sentences where the interview was not about an asylum claim well this was a credible fear interview whose expressed purpose is to assess whether he has a valid credible fear and should no longer be an expedited removal proceedings if the alien is reluctant to reveal information due to prior coersion by c b p agents no there's no allegation of that here and then whether there's a base of fears were true fear of governmental authority does not necessarily mean no credible fear but here he's not of a set of he says he acknowledges throughout each of these interviews that he understands interpretation that he understands that he can ask questions if he has them and that he's comfortable answering these questions and so does all those things taken together and even if we did even if this court decided to adopt these other tests i to thirteen no excusing the credible fear interview notes should be considered and once those come in it's very clear that there's some inconsistency is and some contradictions here that do constitute substantial evidence in support of a credit adverse credibility findings ever given an opportunity to review those  you haven't told me it was he allowed to review them and sign your honor i don't have any evidence of that but that is he they found him to have a credible fear he was given the opportunity to respond when they said well this is what you said in  credible fear interview and that's when the immigration judge makes an explicit demeanor finding that again is unchallenged and the immigration judge was in the best position to see that he became a base of he would not answer the questions directly additionally  doesn't by demeanor because i saw that in the brief and i've read the transcript and i don't see where the judge said anything about what i understand you know to be your honor it's on page fourteen of the i j a decision in some further respond it was a stream lee invasive in many of his answers particular when presented with questions or confronted with discrepancies that entire paragraph is actually a very typical demeanor finding and you'll see that the board explicitly accorded deference to it on page three and the  rd paragraph of its decision in our position is that that is a clear demeanor finding under the case law and that has that hasn't been challenged but more importantly he was given the opportunity  to respond when confronted with these inconsistencies and he really failed to do so and i also want to point out petitioners council senate twenty eight j with an unpublished case regarding a interpreters for the bulk of these credible fear interview notes so to say that two interpreters just completely messed up and that's the only explanation without taking into consideration that even his testimony at his merits hearing w say this isn't what happened but i'm asking you know hypothetical if an i j said i don't believe this about their relationship and even if i believed they travel together from the from the d n c and whatever else whether there's any evidence to support the but at the same time you've offered to show me scars on your leg from stabbing you have been remarkably consistent throughout all of this as far as the persecution and the torture so i think you probably will persecuted and tortured but on the other hand you want truthful with me about the girlfriend so i'm going to deny it would you say that the i j a had acted correctly under the law whether or not and i j can defeat asylum despite finding past and future threat of persecution based on something else namely i don't think you are truthful with me about where we are in central america or south america he ran into your ex girlfriend well your honor i would say that more than that happened here in terms of the inconsistency is i'm not sure it depends on the facts of the hypothetical there is also no corroboration in the record about the scars on his leg i did conclude there was persecution there will be persecution but you lied to me about the girlfriend so asylum tonight i'm honestly not sure under the circumstances because the point of the real id act is that you don't have to look at the heart of the claim but it's still require substantial evidence which which i say is present here but it still requires some evidence of that failing it's not being credible and it's not being regarding the girlfriend that disabused or contradicts the testimony regarding torture and the related issues that judge asked you about in other words if we reject the finding regarding credibility regarding the girlfriend is there anything in the record that contradicts his elevate remaining allegations i wouldn't say so but i will say that it in terms of the inconsistent statements yes they are surrounding her mance but she's presented as someone who's supposed to corroborate his claims and so my question  you to disregard all at best i'm only regarding the girlfriend and her corroboration is there anything in the record that we can look at objective really to determine considering that to tell  remaining circumstance whether they are true or not true i can't think of anything specific there is that i threw in i'm like judge phillips i don't want to push you you think of something but please go ahead tell us but meanwhile i interrupted not interrupted but i stepped on judge persons prerogative as the judge course so i have i guess you know the st thing i want to drill down on is was there a finding an actual finding by the i j that there was persecution and torture and would be persecution and torture if asylum was denied here no i think the immigration judge took the perspective that because there were these rampant inconsistency is surrounding the travel and the situation with her manson the prior sworn statements that he that his entire story could not be credited and that's so that sort of brings me to the to the next step is was it if there weren't all these you know i'm not saying there were inconsistencies or yea or nay but if there were all these and if there were not in consistencies in credibility problems then i would have found there was past persecution and torture and would be persecution and torture if he was returned is that is that more in line with what the i g found i can't really speak for the immigration judge i my reading of the agency is that they disbelieve the entire story i think if i were presented with a hypothetical without the credibility issues we could all agree that if the story is true the problem is that because of all these inconsistencies and contradictions you can't credit the story that's the agency's position ok and so the other thing i wanted to ask you was about his his girlfriend's testimony her months as testimony and her purpose was to corroborate his story  correct and how how does he figure without that corroboration take her out of it let's assume that that testimony never gave him i mean where is he as far as corroboration goes with out her testimony  he has some documentary evidence which as them pointed out he did his sister a pastoral and sent this arrest warrant but he couldn't testify to any specifics to it and it also sort of undercuts this cultural differences explanation because you know on the one hand he can't remember or he's not sure pascall and introduce them in a credible fear interview he says his brother's attended school with her and nobody talks to women but then why is it his sister who's are carrying this arrest warrant if she doesn't know anything about it they don't talk and then  can i ask you does the government agree that the colet on her months had no ability to speak to each other after they were separated at the border one till the london i don't have a complete answer on that i they could have sent mail to each i i genuinely don't know the answer that it's possible they were not in communication it's possible they were somehow able to send letters i i don't know the answer to that relevant to this case in that you focus of course on reliability fundamental questions reliability and fairness fairness to use these notes when the purpose of the credible fear interview is is s preening exercise to determine whether the applicant is even entirely given a hearing the applicant is war get told about what this interview is about it's about you telling us asylum that's up to each individual and their attorney history whether that's something they feel is useful or not useful and how much weight it should be given my i'm just i'm just curious i mean it sounds like you want us to like you and your breathing is takes on the idea that these notes are not credible but i've found in doing some research that that there are cases where other circuits have upheld  you know the grant of asylum based on based on the consistency petitioners petition our position if that were as consistent with the interview no it's certainly they can have been used they have been relied upon another circus but they have to be looked at very carefully and that's what judges in this case that we submitted and in that case even though the court concluded it was proper to use the credible fear notes that was in many of these cases you will see that it's stated that the interview we have the claimant has an opportunity to actually you the statement sign it initial the pages just like you would expect in any sort of other sort of civil proceeding where testimony has been given so i'm not suggesting in court just issue a rule that you can't use credible fear notes but i am suggesting that perhaps you consider was making a statement of law that questions that he purportedly answer to him in the absence of that there suspect you know and maybe don't go the full extent of saying it can't be used but but highlight the fact that would you tell me as assuming you when what happens next in your case what's the what's the relief you want thank you for answering that question or asking a question  did yes our client was deported based on this court's denial of his request for a stay in this court denied the stay based upon the supreme court decision indicate in the parties who have their petitions for review granted and who are deported are not irreparably harmed from the deportation because the government said in that supreme court case we will facilitate bringing the party back so not irreparable harm will facilitate your coming back i'm concerned that that has not been occurring i'm not a practitioner in this area of the law but i've read that it's difficult to get clients back after they have won their petitions for review and that being the case i would request that the court if it is inclined to grant the petition also make a statement to the effect that it expects the government in can in conformance with what was reported in the supreme court decision to facilitate the return to the united states for further proceedings i would say of course that's going to be the case i mean the government is not playing games with the matter in the event that doesn't happen your honor and you know i trust that you're right i understand your time is our so that thank you very much will surely you are many time for the government did you have any thirty seconds that if you want to say this lightly formal procedure but you have twenty two seconds if you want to use them they are honored just that dab well comply with whatever the court orders are and thank you counsel we appreciate that candor the case is submitted ca