this day we're we'll case number one ok case number four now bid versus holder fourteen fourteen dash seventy seven  which you feel would compel a different conclusion specifically the i g was concerned with discrepancies between mr not mince statements at the airport which were taken in a language in which he was not fluent russian not mitt was asked questions and he was confused about how to even answer them even if the meaning of the question he was given that really the answers were nonsensical if you if you look at what the questions were being asked now the judge argued that in his in his decision and the board agreed with him that since mr not made could answer two basic biographical questions and that that meant somehow that he could somehow give lucid answers to questions regarding his fear of returning to mongolia in a situation where he was detained and aspen officer who was not a trained asylum officer but an officer who is working at the border at the airport but his russian may have been somewhat sufficient to get basic biographical in from ation i think anybody who's had maybe a year or a semester of any language may be able to do that but doesn't mean they're fluent and can give answers  specific instances which were the the border protection agent was asking him and we the judge erred by can given weight to that statement when afterwards when he was given a credible fear interview which was really it should be the determining factor it's the first step to the person as this fear is returning to their home country an asylum officer interviews them and that was done a month later in mungo and in the answers he gave at that interview were consistent with his testimony and the documents that he submitted as well as the evidence that we find in the country ports stand the expert witness who testified at his hearing now down there the newspaper article i  pointed out that it wasn't clear where that came from my client that was sent to him by his brother denly i think you're referring to the article that was written about my going on who further is these peace people this is a these are government agents of some kind or threatening him well they were government employees he gave a speech at a rally and he implicated certain members of the government of corruption and soon after that they came to him some people came to him and beat him and were asking him why he had such a big mouth and along those lines basically referring why did he say these people are corrupt what is he what's he trying do he later published an article about it and the threats kept coming in and that one point it took him to a cemetery cemetery and or les kill him he managed to escape then you same people who threaten him in the first place are these different people think these are the same people that threatened him in the first place and it's clear that those people were at least with your mate employees what were they they were government lawyers who were in charge  speaking out against that system and very much similar to what mr nodded was was facing there after he tried to in his own way try to fix the system and be honest about it i think the judges that first credibility finding affected the rest of the decisions with regard to its political pinion in a social group finding that he mr not mitt did not fit into one of those groups going back again to his credibility and simply based on his statement that he gave at the airport while detained with an officer in a language that was not is that of down the pas the fear of the positive credible fear determination in that interview that was quite detailed in terms of what had happened to him because a logical a and in terms of specific that right the positive fear interview was done properly that was with among going interpreter and that was done later in january of following year with a trained asylum officer and they found that there was a credible fear and the officer even noted at some point that mr norman had been asked in russian something about these questions and didn't understand them and in fact there is even an issue noted by that officer with the russian interpreter who mr dogma says was not even a good interpreter that make this the entire communication at that that that moment was capable of being extorted for two hundred thousand dollars i would disagree with counsel because i don't recall from the record that he ever testified they were government agents with immigration specifically asked him well how did you know that these people that came after you were coming after you because you criticize the government and he says well it happened later in other words he was making an assumption he said he didn't know who the men were on the only time he ever knows one of the men is when you testify he puts the baby allegedly to be executed and one of the men was a person who it's very it seems pretty clear that he didn't understand russian theory i'm glad you brought that up here and he admits that he didn't understand russian very well and some of the answers are inconsistent yes i want to i want to talk about those interviews because there were two of them your honor there were two airport interviews in december one in which the start of the russian language he was asked basic biographical information which he was able to answer because he testified that he had attended a technical school in the u s s r that was a russian language school that he graduated with a degree so that he knew some russian a little and in that first interview the questions were not the question are you afraid to return your country has asked him to which he replied no now that's a basic question or are you afraid that's basically the next question in the first interview was  are you going to be harmed if you get returned to country and he said no and then he asked to speak to his daughter on the telephone and went away and then there was a second interview at the airport and in that second interview that's when he started to suggest oh actually i am afraid and it appears that he suggested he was afraid of a business deal gone bad the number two hundred thousand dollars comes up again the friend segment comes up again in that airport interview that he later testifies to before the immigration judge was a sort of the interview in russian the second he was also  russian and but he was more i guess you two equations or something he spoke more and then expressed something different did in the indeed in the first interview he was asked are you afraid i said you know in the second interview he was asked are you afraid and he said yes and he described this business deal gone bad but he was running from i guess debt collectors who were trying to collect two hundred thousand dollars from him and he provided in terms of why he said in the second interview and see the people who attacked him and threatened his business he provided two newspaper articles talking later during immigration proceedings yes yes but the attack then wasn't related to a business right i should point out you're one of the the adverse credibility determination apart from the for operation determination which are two separate things but the average credibility determination didn't rely solely on the discrepancies between these two airport interviews and his testimony before the  the immigration judge was concerned about the vagueness of some of his claims the immigration judge and the board both side of the implausibility of some of his claims i might point out the inconsistency apparently they were trying to extort two hundred thousand dollars from him but also tried to kill him which seems confusing since of course you can't get two hundred thousand suggested he got away from them in the cemetery because his friend segment let him go which is the reverse of segments roll as described in his effort when he said segment was the one who was trying to get the two hundred thousand dollars from him so i mean there's like i said there's  inconsistency in these interviews where they're pointing out actually similar elements but they take to metric the opposite positions in his narrative and so this is what led the immigration judge at the end of his decision to say i didn't know which story to believe which is a classic adverse credibility situation where the immigration just said look i've looked at all your evidence i've taken into account the immigration judge said the fact that you only had basic russian but he didn't you know he found that there was enough question to find against him in terms of actress credibility and then go on to say and also i would like to see some corroboration which i said is a separate finding who what is a social group this is business men who are being threatened or something yes i think i know the board didn't address that issue but i think it was business men who were  being threatened on account of speaking out publicly was the proposed social group but the board never reached the social issue they did they concluded their decision my only reason i mention that is because that's sort of an unusual one and i'm wondering whether is it would there be a difference if this there's a difference between political commentary and just a somebody who's fear of somebody's going to kill him he doesn't pay money right i see what you're getting at your entered politics of course is one of the protected grounds  direct to get to this business deal i suppose like you say you are you have to go through some political a particular social group which is what he did raise below but like i said the immigration judge never kind of history to reach it in the board because he was not credible because he didn't corroborate his arguments the only about what is this about why is this occurring to him and if you could have made up those things by preventing presenting corroborative evidence from for example the family members who allegedly witnessed the employees who allegedly witnessed it business documents that would indicate that the company existed  ability finding the judge didn't find it plausible anyway but he actually was very consistent at every moment except for the interview that was given in a language which is not his native language and he clearly said it wasn't and he didn't understand it very well he provided consistent testimony is credible fear interview he provided the articles he provided medical records and an expert witness that all corroborated as well as the country reports and articles that all corroborated what happened to him in addition to his own testimony from the time of the credible fear hearing on through the individual hearing with the judge was credible and was was consistent but only because of this this one interview that happened at the airport and  t was like to just try forget that there's an assumption that mr not been understood what afraid or fear means and russian he may not we can assume that he came here after a long flight wanted to speak to his daughter and then hours to later they had another interview for him that's not unusual and i don't want to make any assumption about what he did or didn't understand about the officer asked him the first time the fact is russian is not his native language and using that to impeach him is unreasonable and if if that's not used that should never of command to begin with there is no one to even check whether the statements of the officer wrote down after the interview were even given accurate because nobody was present at the  no attorney was there and struggling didn't speak english either he couldn't read that and say all this is correct so all that create problems for everything else he submitted later on and as far  as the people who did harm to him i mean so that they didn't they may not have been the people that he claimed were involved in the corruption but they knew about it and when he was beaten the first time they referenced what the