ok mr kowalski good morning may it please the court in your kowalski the seller law firm austin texas for the petitioners thank you for this opportunity to be of service to the court today you know over thirty years of practicing citizenship these an immigration law i've never encountered a case quite like this a decade and a half ago the petitioners left pakistan fleeing religious persecution threats of religious persecution by family members today their lives are utterly different they have a seventeen year old daughter who has dhaka deferred action  status they have a thirteen year old daughter who is a native born us citizen most importantly they are divorced the mother and milla has custody of the two daughters and finally they are eligible for adoption which is now pending at the supreme court will know within six months probably what will happen with the i think the only prudent thing to do in this case is to remain back to the immigration judge for further fact finding with respect to the effect of the divorce on their cla for relief in effect the divorce has split the case into two cases now either or both or neither of the adult petitioners may be entitled to release depending on what an immigration judge may find as to the effect of this divorce anecdotally i may note this is not evidence but in my  please know that there is no criminal record at issue in this case there is no surreptitious entry in two thousand they entered on tourist visas in two thousand and five they were paroled in at the canadian border as to the credibility issue in this case i encourage the court to read the transcript very carefully of the immigration court hearing and evaluate the credibility issue and note in particular that professor reuben r seven percent of the world's people are status they stay put they live and die where they're born fewer than three percent of the world's people are migrants it takes a great deal of pressure to compel someone to migrate and in this case this family at the time with a two year old and in tow something terrible must have compelled them to move halfway around the world in the daughters are here under either citizenship or dhaka and the parents go back would both parents go back separately now that they're divorced and would the family be likely to recognize the divorce or still have it's the anger at the daughter for having married outside the particular religion that's an excellent question your honor and to be honest i do not know and i hesitate to speculate and again that's i think it's best for the immigration judge to make those fin time so there's an outstanding motion to have to sever and remain and at least for the daughter yes well i mean is that it is that different from what you're questioning that is to remain motion to sever and remain the daughter of the seventh year old daughter has doctor status so she's effectively off the table the government has no problem with with removing her from the case severing her  anticipated that doctor will continue her doctor's status will be renewed potentially for a long time to come so really we're down to the the adult petitioners the former husband and wife and the effect of their divorce and the persecution that they claim that their family members would visit upon their daughter is  now i would submit an open question that only an immigration judge in an evidentiary hearing should be valued there's not enough in the record about oh no no my name is ashley martin and i represent the respondent in this matter your honour's the government does agree that the impact of the divorce on this religious persecution claim is a question for a higher fat however this court should not remain on this case to the agency for further consideration and the reason for that is that this is a religious persecution claim that was found to be not credible in the first instance by the agency and this court should conclude that that adverse credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence the law has two requirements for judicial review of adverse credibility findings first the immigration judge must provide specific and cogent reasons for the adverse credibility finding second those reasons must be supported by the record here the adverse credibility finding satisfies both of these requirements most  nature of this persecution claim it was crucial that mr hussein and ms had be provide credible and consistent testimony regarding any continued contact with ms have beats family however mr hussein in this bead failed to provide that consistent and credible testimony regarding any continued contact with her family in particular mr hussein initially testified that his wife had had no contact with her family whatsoever since they left pakistan in two thousand and however he subsequently changed his testimony he was asked questions such as well if there's been no contact with your wife's family how are they aware that  grandchild is being raised in her father's religion are in other words the shia faith and he was also asked well if there's been no contact with your wife's family are they aware that they have a second grandchild born in the united states and mr hussein changed his testimony and said well my wife is in contact with her family and he indicated that that could be as often as on a weekly or bi weekly basis however when further questions about this topic mr  that he didn't know how frequently they were still in the same house your honor their testimony was that they were still married i don't believe anybody specifically asked them whether or not they still lived in the same did it seem to be assumed and certainly neither mr hussein nor his wife indicated that they no longer lived in the same households and it was their testimony that they were still merely and that's really it's really crucial that this claim this whole claim is based on the allegation that mr bates family has made a death threat against the petitioner is eleven years later they can't return to pakistan threatened mr hussein's appearance who still lived in pakistan and no harm had come to mr hussein's parents and based on that the immigration judge noted you know there's really nothing here to indicate that these petitioners couldn't go back to pakistan and safely relocate elsewhere in the country and by regulation because there was no past persecution in this case the petitioners did have the burden of demonstrating that they could not safely relocate elsewhere in pakistan however despite the fact that the immigration judge did make that finding that's not a finding that was discussed or adopted by the board and this court's review focuses on the board's decision because the board didn't adopt that aspect of the immigration judge's decision it's beyond the court's scope of you at this time your honour's and i would also like to note i'm with regards to the adverse credibility finding that mr b it also had significant discrepancies regarding the nature and the extent of her contact with her family she initially testified that she had not discussed the topic of her older daughter's religion with her family since she left pakistan in two thousand however she later testified that she had spoken with her family about her daughter's religion twice since the family had left pakistan  first in two thousand and three or two thousand and four when she was living in canada she testified that at that time she told her parents and her brother that her older daughter would be raised in her husband's religion and they made a death threat against her and her family she also testified that after returning to the united states in two thousand and five she again had some contacts with her family again the topic of her daughter's religion came up and again her family made regards the subsequent divorce i just want to make sure i understand your position and simply that the divorce and the fact that there is that they are now divorced does it affect the determination about credibility one way or the other yes wrong or right and i think it's the divorce is an intervening circumstance it happened after this case was heard on the facts there's nothing in the record about the impact of the divorce but that does not necessitate a remittance here because there's no need to re ma a case to consider the impact of an intervening circumstance on a persecution claim that was found to be not credible to begin with at your honour's if there are no further questions regarding credibility the government would like to note that there is a due process argument that was raised and the petitioners brief in particular that this indeed was not adequately questioned regarding some of the topics of eligibility requirements doc it is always tied to the age of the apple kid when he or she first arrived in the united states so essentially that minor petitioner would not age out at the dock eligibility requirements when granted zaka there is an expiration date as to the grants and periodically the beneficiary does have to renew the dhaka status however  with correct order there's a pending motion to sever the minor petitioner mushy hussain from this case and re man's her proceedings to the board so that the board can administratively close her removal proceedings so we're asking the court essentially to take two actions with regard to the minor petitioner sever her from the case and not grant the petition as to her but simply remain and her proceeding alone to the agency so that it because the adverse credibility finding is supported by substantial thank your honour's with respect to the credibility issue but i would agree with counsel for the government that there are significant challenges with respect to their testimony however the the divorce is an event of such magnitude that it really has created two separate cases doesn't help me understand how the divorce affects the credibility determination which was made with regard to testimony that was given i mean i don't know if you're saying they're more likely to be truthful now to do the two separate hearings they will be testifying separately and one could argue that they will be more candid they probably took an oath to be candid when they when they