consequence of that is that mr coote be allowed to stay and he has for the past several years been living in irving texas a suburb of dallas working he's allowed to work although not some jobs are reserved for citizens but he he has a job working there but the consequences are he less of the rights that one would have here for granted asylum and most significantly he does not have the ability  to naomi and obtain asylum based on him and his having obtained asylum as a benefit that eleven fifty eight b three gives to spouse and children of those who obtain asylum it's determined he faces a more than fifty percent likelihood of being persecuted again or if he wants to avoid persecution he can stay here and not be able to see his wife that's that that substantial evidence includes i beg your pardon it includes several factors our focus on substantial evidence for a moment substantial evidence includes the credibility standards that this court has set forth in particular saying that decision must be based on factual findings and not on speculation  on page two fifty four of the record i found that the respondent has not met his burden to persuade me that he deserves relief in the actual size of discretion because i don't believe him to have been truthful as to the extent of his activities for snap even though i relying on that they're relying on the credibility issue not merely membership going back to your honest first question would that have been sufficient if you know that i got membership here and and i'm going to draw an inference from that i don't believe that would have been sufficient for a couple of reasons one of the what we know from cases like asylum and that's next the families apart you need to go back and take a close look at that because we have a policy that families are to be kept together when he put those factors in the mix of map plus excuse  standards i give credit to that testimony and i believe that he didn't do anything there's no garage evidence that he did do anything if you put those factors together i don't think you can get to a point of saying we  i would take two part answer to that question your honor the first part would be as i as i just indicated my answer to judge by that if you of the ledger when we put membership as a negative factor i do believe that would be permissible question is that what they did here no i don't believe they did i think it's i think it's clear from what they said that there are a of improper adverse credibility determination and if they rely on an improper factor then and that's an abuse of discretion it doesn't matter if there might also have been some additional proper factors in and let me give a citation for that because i don't think we have one in our brief i direct the court to the firk case two ninety five s third ten fifty five at ten sixty to ash ten names at the same time one that if we follow the rules of substantial evidence and the law regarding credibility we accept mr cooper's testimony we find that he didn't do anything to accept snap put it the same time as a matter of discretion and we disbelieve that testimony and find that he agrees and can they make those two findings at the same time submit that they cannot fit that particular fact pattern but i don't think we're in uncharted territory as i said i'm aware of three cases in which this court considered discretionary den hadn't spent enough time in the third country to be disavowed under there under those rules but the be where we're entitled make a discretionary decision we can rely on whatever we want and we're going to rely on the amount of time spent in the third country even though it doesn't it's not enough under the guiding one i believe there is a ten ten forty six of  the opinion and this court reversed in to to allow that would undermine the law are governing for resettlement and similarly here it would undermine the rules of substantial evidence and credibility good morning at this the court my name is andrew mclachlan i represent the responded attorney general of the united states in this case as the court observed from the outset this case is characterized by  me let me go directly to the issue that the candor a credibility issue and your honor was i was discussing examples of let me throw out a couple of other examples for you let me specifically address the issue of a credibility determination for example as you're familiar with this course case law if it credibility if it is a matter of inconsistency or lack of credibility does not asylum claim itself then the immigration court on the board of immigration appeals cannot reach an adverse credibility determination that goes to the total issue of eligibility and exclude an alien from admissibility based on that determination so let's assume for a moment at the ill in his heart in a bald faced lie seeking relief from an immigration judge and it doesn't go to the asylum is the immigration judge required to ignore the made in this case that is the alien was determined to be credible on the facts that were applicable to his asylum claim is absolute there is no issue associated with that however the only just wasn't being forthcoming in kalugin testified he testified truthfully but that he did not offer sufficient testimony that is that there are other things that he withheld from the from the from the i j a and that is everything that he said affirmatively was true i  have a wife i'm twenty nine years old whatever i was i was persecuted i think withheld things that you're either sockless to parse that first of all the immigration judge clearly had the sense that this person was not being entirely forthcoming with him it wasn't clear that this wasn't really a good person and it partly because some of the things that the alien testified he accepted this true yes i was a member of an organization that everybody universally thinks is really bad for ten years and i accepted benefits as a result of that and i and i presented myself as a member of that and i never tried to get away from it and it was all good stuff for me and i really enjoyed my life living with all of those benefits the immigration judge got a sense from good movies you got it you got a tax break and if you didn't participate in any way you didn't provide any information to snap and i just don't believe that would be it that would be just a flat out credibility gap now the question that the hypothetical you told me everything about your participation with snap and of mr clooney says yes at that point that i can say you know something my gut tells me you're not telling me the truth and this and that would be and that also would be an adverse credibility funny but the i g didn't issue does not mean that the whole the total sense that the that the immigration judge and there and the board immigration appeals through the the record receives by reviewing the record should demonstrate should be a factor that they may it's pretty straightforward if the facts are right and the facts in this case are are they the immigration judge and the board specifically say things that are true that thirty years not matter any doubt about the exceptions the benefits or the fact that the immigration judge was feeling that this guy wasn't being forthcoming as those are the facts that are involved if those things are not precluded as a matter of law from the discretion of the board to consider as a matter of discretion it is not abus organization no matter what the members personally do is anathema that's all and we don't want to do anything in this country to embrace membership  this organization membership period i don't know why they can't consider that as a factor in accurate in balance along with all sorts of other things but that's very different from just sort of go you know i believe in he didn't do anything and yet i kind of don't believe it is not clear from the record that vapid is at those specific fundamentally they were required to consider the argument that was raised and they did they consider the regulation that was cited by the way on the regulation merely makes it a factor they're required to think about that and they did think about it and what they determined was that it didn't change where they were at the fact that the alien wasn't going to be able to bring his strauss with status to the united states didn't changed their point of view and this goes back to what jeff scandalous referred to earlier about the distinctions between asylum and withholding and how that how that applies think  there could have been hundreds and hundreds of arguments associated with with with whether or not they do that or the board is not required to address every single argument in every situation they did consider what the what mr kalugin raise that is i myself wouldn't be able to situation where the issue was considering all of the factors where you come out as a matter of discretion a list of the factors that they considered and they told you where they came out as a matter of discretion it is not required designed to not cause people to be separated as opposed to not allow people to bring their spouses over for it you need in the structure it was resigned to not compel the government to separate people as opposed to not allow them to bring them together secondly there's nothing stopping this trickle of me from going to a third country and meeting his spouse another country he can travel and he can even come back to the united states nor is there anything stopping his spouse from coming to the united states as a visitor the key to this concept is more that we're getting into this matter of grace again that the united the the obligation to not send somebody back to a place where they're going to be persecuted is significant and it's mandatory it's governed by international law we accepted it and that's what withholding means we're not going to send mr colby back to the congo where he's going to get persecuted period we can send him to a third country if the attorney general identifies the country that will take him they can send  the attorney general can send in there and if you want stimulus fast there he can the difference between asylum and withholding in that respect is considerable withholding is a limited form although it's mandatory it's a limited form really it's a temporary form situation in the congo changes and we know them even already have changed the time general could send this trickle back to the congo as soon as that situation a serious situation has changed based on withholding but if asylum were the case that wouldn't be the situation so there's a series of differences but one of the considerable differences is if you're granted asylum after a certain truth time and subject to the limitations and so on you can adjust your status and become a lawful permanent just because and the reason why i should get that benefit is so that you can also get that better of grace as a collateral consequences for somebody else is simply too speculative it's something way down in the weeds so low the record is as fierce pointed out and i think speech thirty respond it's brief is full of references saying yes he has medical conditions but don't have a problem for him he gets along just fine he walks with a cane he's ok he doesn't require any significant treatment he's not there's nothing wrong with him he's a person with a disability that survives just fine in any society that's with the record reflects the substantial evidence in the record reflects that and there's no doubt that the is good health is an accurate representation of what mr halevi situation and the board was correct in saying so you're honest the the total issue here is it's really kind of simple once you get past what you sort through what the border really did there is a distinction between the concept of credibility determination and the concept of what's what's this person all about is this person meriting of and favorable exercise of discretion and you can also see that in this separate issue of the canadian determination libby argues in his brief that somehow the board adopted the negative discrimination by canada that that the person was an incredible and therefore didn't want to sell something not what happened in the case that mr clooney came through another country then came to the united states then went to canada and sought asylum in canada was that i'd say on account of failing to appeal this from a nation in canada and then came to the united states and what the case law behind that reflects is what they're looking for is is this person truly refugee is this person that he is what's lurking in this person's mind the kinds of things that we're going to be granting that merit this favorable  in those circumstances according to that you know the who look a southern and the other case law that the board was relying on those kinds of circumstances indicate that the favorable exercise of discretion if there were to be one should be in canada and that the fact that he subsequently came to the united states or actually first came to the united states and didn't seek asylum here and then subsequently came to the united states after being a night in canada told the board that there was something else this guy was looking for he wasn't just a refugee he was looking for something specific in asylum from the united states and in those circumstances that is an enormously nebulous factor for to be considered and yet it's previously been upheld and it's the kind of thing broad the discretion is in the factors that are considered in the week that that the bush give to those factors under those circumstances given the breadth of that discretion the fact the paschal employed such as the right let me first address the question of reuniting mr and mrs kaloogian in a third country the i just noted here on page two fifty three of the record that it's virtually unheard of for another country to receive from the united states the citizen of of a country that's not his own there's no evidence in the record of some third country where mr and mrs kalu be could be is there by effectively precluding had mission of the applicant spouse or minor children following in to join him or her so i read that as as including in the situation where the first spouse comes and seeks to bring the rest of the family in on which i know that as a hundred years ago it was a common practice the families would send one representative over and hopefully bring the others later tonight i believe still years so i think it does speak to you too there's the thing i'm like following it to use the words the regulation not just when they when they come together i have only a few seconds left