that mr shimon firmly resettled in greece and the second that he made an adverse credibility credibility determination as counsel if we if we agreed that the petitioner have firmly resettled we don't have to get to the adverse credibility issue is that correct i believe so but that's in dispute as well so for the settlement in greece it there's no dispute that he did become a permanent resident greece around two thousand and nine and in two thousand and eleven he left greece the claim for persecution in albania happened around two thousand and thirteen which was two years after he left greece visit me i ask you the fact that he left greece does that on do the fact that he was given permanent status there yes i would argue that because his claim for persecution happened after he lost his residence in greece and he did testify that he did lose it it's similar to our system or permanent resident leaves the country for more than one year he does presumptively have has abandoned his status there is a similar rule in greece as per the testimony of mr shima there's also another requirement where he had to work under fifty days in greece per year to maintain his status and being out of the country for two years he lost that counsel before we leave that point do you have a case citation that would support the proposition that if an individual voluntarily give up his permanent status that undoes the firm resettlement in that country i did try to find the laws in greece it was very difficult to know but i judicial recognition of greek law that was rejected by this court it happened just recently i couldn't find the rule earlier than than just recently because we do every week there is no way for us to know in fact that that document was what it purported to be no aspersions on the origin of the document but we just couldn't tell from from the document whether or not it was what it purported to be and that's the difficulty in getting a lawyer from greece and i did try my due diligence i do recommend remanding to the immigration court to make that first finding to see if he can rely on that greek law whether mr shima did yes it should be remanded for the i j a to to make the finding of fact whether mr shimon as testimony corroborates the law that in fact that we did present to this court even though it was late to this court of the petitioner also to testify he cannot go back to greece or even renew his permanent residence status after being out of the country for two years it's less a question legally as to whether in fact he could go back it's more a question as to whether he in fact was offered permanent visa status and he has been offered permanent visa status up until july first through the end of june of two thousand and eighteen doesn't that essentially ask answer the question that is in fact he has a has been offered for the purposes of immigration jurisprudence he's been offered permanent resident status yes that's correct but the distinguishment is that he was offered and lost that prior to his claim of persecution but of course that i'm not so sure he has lost it didn't he in fact use his card his permanent visa status car to get back into greece that's also in dispute the testimony was a little shaky and not on the transcript on page eighty five he does state he cannot testify to that specifically he did use this albanian passport that had the greek visa in it but it doesn't he didn't state that the reason he was allowed in greece was because he had a greek visa opinions are lots enter greece up to ninety days to travel for personal and for business purposes back and forth so presenting an albanian passport with a visa that could've been expired does not necessarily can it is not necessarily conclusive that he uses permanent resident visa to enter greece but he did in fact show his permanent resident visa as he entered greece i'm just not sure as to whether or not the agent use that as the basis to a permit him to enter while he presented his passport right i have no idea if the agent saw that page and mended him under that status or just saw that he was albanian citizen and admitted him as a tourist up to ninety days it's it's not clear on the record well of that campaign in passport correct  conclusions that were not really supported by the record he stated that mr sima had a preconceived intention to travel to the us to claim asylum that's really not relevant and i was one of his basis for  he also stated that his brother who was in the court did not testify on his behalf which is also not relevant his brother was not in albion at the time he would have first hand knowledge on the persecution and his brother had been living in the united states for many years prior he says that there was no evidence that this person even existed however we did provide evidence that he existed and that's in the administrative record from page two five nine two two six one we just did just that just going further with is i'm not sure what his title is but he is part of the democratic party and he wanted mr shima to buy votes for his for the local elections at the time and mr shimon was a member of the socialist party and that's where the political opinion comes and so what you're suggesting is that the threat to mr shimon was because of the vote buying scheme that well what did in fact because  saying the threat was because he refused to comply with a vote buying scheme yes that's when the threats to him and his family occurred they he was seen with his son at a socialist rally by mr or his so called henchmen and that's where the political pinion comes and even though it was a private citizen he claims that he is connected to the local police and the government would be a no unable or unwilling to help him and that then he relies upon of the relationship with mr dicko and buying his false documents but what you're suggesting now is that that is not relevant but really it's a vote buying scheme oh no it's very relevant that that was the initial threat and mister did ask for his money and that's when he received an initial threat but the central claim was when these people saw him with his son at a rally at a socialist rally alternative explanations unless we are compelled to one or the other we have to uphold the decision of the board do you agree with that i understand yes correct karan all right thank you you could see that your time will give you one minute for a bottle issue in turn to start a petition or has yet to show why any reasonable adjudicator under the substantial evidence standard would be compelled to find that he had not firmly resettled in greece now the contras of this dispute are pretty clear right now in the record there was direct evidence that petitioner had indeed received an offer of permanent resettlement in greece in the form of a greek permanent residence card so now the burden shifts to petitioner to rebut that evidence he failed to do so below most he claimed that his permanent residence in greece had expired because he was out of the country and failed to work there for one hundred fifty days each year but petitioner never actually provided any documentary evidence supporting this it was simply his testimony and on substantial evidence review the immigration judge and the board of immigration appeals was entitled to conclude that this did not overcome the clear import of that permanent resident document also what's your response to opposing counsel's suggestion that we should remain in this matter for the board to remain and to the i j to consider the evidence of greek greek l your honor we don't think that would be appropriate under the substantial evidence standard because we think in this context the immigration judge in the b i a was faced with two explanations at best and we think they equally could have and reason we could have concluded t petitioner had failed to rip up this evidence that he was a permanent residence and not just the permanent resident card that was entered into evidence and petitioner did testify in the hearings that he was a permanent resident of greece and that he used this card to enter greece in two thousand and fourteen so we think there was more than enough evidence for the immigration judge and the board to conclude that he was in fact a permanent resident of greece and that he had failed to rebut it is that the status of the evidence to the in fact testified that he used the permanent resident visa to get into greece in two thousand and fourteen because obviously opposing counsel suggest that he gave he gave the opening a passport which included the permanent road resident visa but that was not necessarily relied upon by greek authorities to allow him in there you're correct your honor that there is a dispute we think the record is pretty clear on this point though you can look at pages one sixty nine to one seventy two i think are the key pages for this for purposes here and he did testify that he used his permanent residence status to enter into the country now when he appealed from the immigration judge to the board of immigration appeals for the first time he made this new argument saying that oh well i'll be any and citizens can come in to greece using their albanian passports but i would be attached i believe it was a plane ticket with some language showing that one could do this sort of generic plane ticket but as the b i explained this argument is never presented to the immigration judge and we think this novel argument doesn't carry the weight especially in the face of petitioners testimony to the immigration judge you agree that if if he could can't get back get back into greece that he's he's not you can't say that he will that yes your honor but in this context we think that the evidence is pretty clear and it a minimum under the substantial evidence review we think it should be affirmed i mean basically what you had in front of the agency was a piece of evidence showing that he had a permanent resident status in greece until twenty eighteen and then testimony from him that he used these papers to get into greece in two thousand and fourteen and in addition to that your honor as i'd also point you to a spot in the record where he was returning it to italy or going to italy from albania in late two thousand and thirteen and at that point he said that at that time i used my greek papers to get into italy and he said those papers were good at the time pat testimony conflicts with his explanation now that he would have lost that after one hundred fifty days and that's it page one twenty one of the ministry of record and so we think given all this context that this court should deny the petition voluntarily returned to europe and then ultimately back to obeying your own two points of clarification on the white status first i just want to urge that the board of immigration appeals to not rely on this particular factor in the immigration judges adverse credibility findings that are relied on to others so we don't think that's really appropriate basis to assess at this point but setting that aside the wife the immigration judges point as far as we understand it is the reason why the whites returned to europe was relevant was that she could have applied for asylum like her husband did and evidently chose not to because she returned and so i believe the id's reasoning was that had there actually been a significant threat to petitioner and his family the wife would have sought asylum as well i think that's the extent of it but in any event it's likes playing before we don't find that particularly relevant in this case but on the credibility issues your honor we do believe that in this context especially on substantial that evidence review this court should deny the petition on the basis of the challenge the board's credibility finding with the board gave two reasons for affirming immigration judges adverse credibility finding and we think both make sense and especially with stand substantial evidence review the first is that petitioner despite his claims of threatened being threatened by a man named sokol dicho returned to albania three times after he had fled there and thirteen now he claims that he did so to secure his children's safety but we think there are two problems with that explanation your honour's and the first is he made three per turn trips to albania but the record shows that only on the third day he actually returned to take his children there and secure their safety and we're not quite sure what he did on the preceding two trips and so that undercuts any sort of explanation that he had a compelling basis to return and so even if we set that final aside we still think this undermines his credible his credibility with respect to his fear of returning that he was being actually hunted by dicho and even if all the trips were to secure his children's safety  still undercuts his narrative or the credibility of his narrative that dicho could find him and hunch him throughout europe if he was willing to take his children and place them in the country where dica we can see they had the most access to his family moving on from that point counsel do we need to reach the adverse credibility determination if we determine he was firmly wreaths you know you're on the firm resettlement point goes to his asylum application and so i think you do need to touch on credibility to address the withholding withholding and convention against torture claims but anyway on the asylum point or excuse me on the withholding of removal and credibility the other point that the board gave and i think it's instructive is it recognized petitioner remained in europe after fleeing albania to italy for almost a year and during that time he traveled to five different countries and he didn't apply to asylum in any of them and when he was asked why he didn't apply to asylum in any of these countries he said it was well because dica was going to hunt him track him down through europe and the immigration judge pushed him on this and tried to get an explanation exactly why like a would do this given that petition over fifteen thousand euros not vice versa and as the immigration judge pointed out that he petitioner really didn't have a compelling basis for why dicho would scour the european continent to hunt him and so based on this implausible testimony the immigration judge and the board in fraudulent materials but then the the arguments seem to shift through a political question because you have to show the political connection the political opinion in regard to asylum and to what extent is there any evidence to suggest that q was in some way exercising his threats arising out of some political position or opinion your honor there there's competing testimony and explanations from petitioner on this at first he starts with the explanation would be that tyco was going to go was hunting him because he inquired about the money and was concerned about this later he goes on and says oh it's because he points to the fact that those men saw him at a he did not give any sort of political reason for it he said oh he thinks that you're perhaps dica will just hunt him because he was afraid of getting caught and wants to you know keep him quiet or something along those lines so once again it was tied to the money rather than any sort of he had his his testimony was that he can't get back into greece because he's been outside too long and the adverse credibility doesn't go to that back your honor we with respect to the firm or settlement point we don't think you should remand because on substantial evidence review we think that there was more than enough to uphold the finding that he lacked that he had to go on the no your honor at the immigration judge did but the agency did not so we would ask you not to rule on that particular issue what next is i thank you counsel thank you your  a proper finding house of the difficulty is there appears to be substantial evidence in the record are ready to support the determination that he was firmly resettled based on his testimony that he could use the greek document to go in and out the country and in that he in fact used it again on the transcript on the subsequent page eighty five in the transcript he did say he cannot make that testimony even though he says on page eighty four that he used the document to come back and forth upon further inquiry he did conclude he can not make that testimony he did have an interpreter there was issues with the interpreter the first interpreter the second one was better his testimony was practically the same both times there ok so the answer is i could go in and out but it's almost two years that i've not worked in greece and i cannot testify that i can hold the status so that reinforces that he's lost the status even though he did state before that he can go in and out until twenty eighteen well before that the question on line three so if you were moved to greece right now you'd be able to live there until twenty eighteen he said if i cannot live there because he'll find me there not because his documents would not allow him but because he would find me there to enter a different country unless there was a thorough review by telling authorities there was no way they could find out that the visa was revoked or or the status with it had expired and i was for going to greece three times it's not fatal to the claim he did secure or sell his car as he testified and to secure his family and take care of his property in obtaining before he then eventually came to the thank you counsel thank you to both counsel thank you yours the case just argued if that made it four decision by the court the next case on counsel argument is the current versus sessions