ar to be credible to be truthful but they found his story to be incredible isn't there a distinction there between finding mr towbar to be not to be lying but that is story was just not believable that the that in objective listener to the story wouldn't find that it resulted in his meeting stand your honor respectfully t two points in response one being under mendo so many in bow this court says that you can't find an implicit credibility right ruling you can only a state explicitly that that if there is no out that there's an adverse credibility but second to the point that here the i j a did not have specific project reasons to support the impossibility of finding in fact looking at the record evidence including that newspaper articles and the u s state department these both corroborate mr colbert's testimony the state department which the i expressly admitted corroborates the specific part of the story that i just said he found it not worthy of belief relating to the sergeant his close friend who was murdered as a because of his whistle blower status that his sister and mother were involved in these kidnappings significant evidence to establish persecution so you need not be able to identify the specific dates and times in which you were chased you need not be able to identify even the names of the perpetrators the fact that they called him on the phone and said that they were going to kill him in the same manner that they killed his close friend who had just turned state what seats witness and was about to testify against the corrupt police forces and the kidnappers this is the this is that right there that testimony which needs to be accepted as true because that the i j a specifically declined to make close friend sergeant creo was about to testify against the corrupt police forces and the kidnappers in the record in the country report that the ira admitted it specifically details at least twelve policeman that were part of this corrupt kidnapping murder and said i'm going to kill you in the way that i killed sergeant korea but i'm having difficulty distinguishing between this rhetoric you know and something we smells like political opinion i mean this man was a member of any political party with an activist in any political movement he was not identified as a member as a member of any party so where's the political opinion the individual was approached by an opposition reporter and asked to tell what about one instant incident in the military the court ultimately said that he wasn't actually whistle blowing but that perception that he was whistle blowing your honor respondents also cited in their brief qatari of the ins which says that if you take it when there is no explicit adverse credibility finding you must accept his testimony as true so here when you accept a worse testimony is true  to that imputed political pinion necessarily follows would you have to accept you have to accept his testimony you have to accept the story as being true but you have to accept the conclusion as being true which is that  s country report due support to the substantial evidence of a fear of persecution based on his imputed peter political opinion but it isn't necessarily the case that in making credibility finding you have to find his conclusion to be true you're on the i do need not conclude that he fit within a protected ground but he must accept the statement that he was being chased on account of his association with sergeant korea as true because of the words coming out through the phone to him i'm going to kill you in the way that i killed sergeant creo that's an association immediately following the murder he was seen in public with any exercise with him he had a three year professional relationship with the gentleman the news reports in the record established that sergeant korea was about to testify against the corrupt police forces and the and the kidnappers which is an in and of itself a whistleblower status and a political opinion so sergeant so mr towbar is association with him is sufficient honor i understand that that's one of the government's arguments but argue it's a straw man argument first of all in tow bars per se appeal to that be ira he i think he said he was a member of a group of people who've gone to the police and that gang members believe they're a threat to him as your honour's know you construe you should construe his pro se a application liberally additionally topers council at his merits hearing said that he was associated with police officers who have been killed and can been considered  information about either the underlying case or the killing itself and the individuals believe towbar has information about the underlying case not  questions that were asked by the panel i think in the speaking and one in regard to the due process claim that just the two of our did not have any notice of his that he did was a violation of a due process because he did have did not have notice of the credit that he was a credibility problem with his testimony even though the immigration judge found that he could not make it an explicit adverse credibility term mission he did find several instances of implausibility which led him to believe that he had not made a credible claim as you judge he has pointed out in that case and in because of that he has been put on notice that he that there was a problem with the credibility of his sister and himself because they've even the newspaper article say that his whole reason for doing so was to get his mother and sister out of jail and for all three of them to then have be able to leave the country i think that that's a different story than a whistleblower sister in those stories but it doesn't mention any connection between the two of them all right so the primary motivation of her career in forming what he considers to be corrupt police is to get his mother and daughter o testimony and in the newspaper articles the individuals who supposedly killed sergeant korea would never identified the petitioners case was never able to identify the people who who threatened him even though he saw them even though understand in the book can't do that and the boy didn't do that well they've they've they agree with the immigration judge that the claim as as judge eaton as said overall was difficult to believe not that these why one of the specific code reasons why overall story was difficult to believe that's not like fine i think that you actually ask questions with regard to that in the beginning by asking you know this is an individual who is a police officer who has nine years on the force but has no way of identifying or recognize the people who are supposedly chasing him he takes no action in order to fight to find out who these people are he reports to nobody in the police force that he is being chased out followed i understand that he says he couldn't because he didn't trust people in the police force but that doesn't mean that everybody in the police force the thousand member police force that he belonged to or the two hundred members of his specific force he would have us believe that is there some evidence that there was a simon pure group policeman to whom he could go and tell the truth no but there also in the same token there is not any proof that there that the entire police force was corrupt as well yes in some instances there have been investigations and actual trials being convictions against police officers who i'm sorry i don't recall is does he give a timeline in which the for instance the last threat was made before he let my reading of the of the record know they would then that question may not have actually been asked but he said that individuals but also have never been harmed and mr tobe arm self was never harmed physically harmed in fact he was asked that question in in the testimony somewhat of a to the answer but acknowledged that police officers in el salvador are often in danger as police officers are pretty much anywhere in the world i would i would say so our issue is not so much with the problem with mr tovah story is i believe the nex not us i think it's and i think because of the well our our problem with the whistleblowers as itself is that we don't think that it's necessarily appropriate in this in such in  me why isn't it valid just because of the the definition of a whistleblower and why mr a by sergeant korea was taken at heart of your defense was part of your response position the whistleblower claim was not ar was pro se before the board and had completely different p s g you know particular social group in political opinion claims before that had a different political opinion in particular social group claim before the i j a and actually in his pro se brief to this court stated that changed a story yet again saying in prior to in his testimony stated that he was the only one who was contacted but in his brief to this this court stated that he and others were presumed to be or assumed to be or were suspected of being involved in the kidnappings themselves so as you can see this is a situation that has evolved over the past fourteen years a story that is of all over the past fourteen years which i think is what leads to the difficulty with the claim being credible the council if i understand your argument  that make a difference i think it makes it just because of that because of the the imputed political opinion because he's such a i mean mr towbar is a completely different position than  stajan korea was deciding korea was just doing this to root out or to expose corruption there might be a more of a connection between the two but sergeant creel was doing it to save his mother and sister which is what cannot be imputed those same reasons cannot be ok so what language are you saying that at the end of that paragraph you aren't says the court has also considered the possibility as to whether his asylum claim must also take into consideration imputed political opinion and then your honor looking at page one hundred one where in your honour's asked questions regarding the whole reason for doing this by starting creo was that it was to save his mother and sister who was that i'd remind the government that this is a pretty real i d act case that the basis for krios political opinion and therefore what's imputed to mr cobar it need not be the sole motivation for his action the fact that sergeant korea was going to testify against corrupt policemen and kidnappers for multiple reasons including turning over and turning state's evidence and exposing all of this corruption is sufficient so you said there were two bases for relief the first was imputed political opinion was the second your honor the second is the impute gentleman was perceived to be gay and he was then profound to be protected as a perceived member of a social class a social group here for mr towbar here are the imputed social group would be individuals that are going to testify against the gangs in the police officers in el salvador the wake of the civil war so our standard of review a substantial evidence to agree yes your honor and so is it your argument that we are compelled to find or compelled to make a conclusion that is ok taking away the due process issue because we haven't talked about that very much in terms of whether or not there was a nexus to a protected ground don't we review that for substantial evidence yes your honor so that means the opinion that's not the question the question is is the only outcome we can reach that that there was a nexus to a protected ground that's the only outcome that can be reached based on these that respect looking at the top bars credible testimony the newspaper articles and the country report the record compels the conclusion that mr towbar is the nexus is matt for the imputed political opinion because it started creo status as a whistleblower