here not not necessarily did they consider that if that is the issue that to be a considered view or future prosecution future prosecution the be i did consider fear a future persecution based on his affiliation with the united states was political opinion imputed political opinion religious persecution there's some language about how it's it's a fear that he would be seen as an infidel which sounds like religious persecution so did did the anywhere in the briefing did he identify what the particular claim was so i don't know if it's drawn out it's explicitly in the briefing but it is membership in of in a particular group so your so your argument i not political opinion or imputed political opinion you're saying that he he fears being persecuted for membership in a particular social group and what is at social so that that social group  affiliation or the perceived affiliation with the united states the united states military so it's persons who are afghanistan l a terry who are perceived as being affiliated with the united states military or how did you did you characterize it in any way in the in the briefing so he would say he worked as an english translator on behalf of the u s government but in fact he never did there's nothing in the record indicating he worked as an english translator on behalf of the u s government is there so that may have been me mr unclear in the record what he did is he was invited to the u s for english training so he was trained in the united states but he wasn't working on their him if he were turned afghanistan so that's a political opinion but then he goes on to say he would be seen as an infidel having been associated with western culture that's persecution on the basis of religion in other words that he had converted from being a idiology so it's i don't think it's necessary to have to spell that out i think what the concern is the taliban is associating him with that with this western ideology whatever that may be is that the taliban is as perceiving this connection here based on as of connection with the united states his time spent training his role as an english teacher counselor the problem i'm having based on your interchange with judge accoutred is i'm not sure this argument was fully exhausted before the  it's a little bit murky as to what his argument was before the board i think i'm beginning to gain a better insight into why the board didn't specifically address so i think it's understandable that the record is clearance but the idea that it wasn't preserved or exhausted i don't know that's correct well that's the question i mean based on your answers to judge who is question do you maintain that the argument was exhausted otherwise we don't have but which is it both and if so where do we were we look in the record to see that clearly frame so that the board understood that that was the argument he was making well i get i don't think the middle east social group the only thing i saw relevant to the taliban other than the initial attack which was while he was still in the military in  afghanistan and in the united states was a letter saying request your brother who is a teacher in the military academy that he should leave his job a but he wasn't a teacher in the u s military academy he was only a teacher in the afghanistan military academy so so what's the evidence there that there was a imputed political opinion or political particular social group so i think afghanistan so that's implying that he's he's no longer there the second point is also that the timing of the letter it was sent shortly after he was he came to the united states and then i think the context of the kidnapping the torture of his brother what they're demanding information what we don't know that was do so it's a our one twenty nine and that's the immigration judge is finding their pick and their opinion that the the letter and the kidnapping was corroborated that it was it was a telegram ok i'll check that i took you over your time we'll give you a minute for however before going into that significant omission which led to the adverse credibility finding i'll pivot over to that issue that we've been discussing with respect to petitioners morfin claim a particular social group it's important to distinguish what he has actually claimed before the immigration judge and what he attempts to bring in on appeal and through other later are i'm sorry later briefing that was a presented before they were gratian court in which case it was not exhausted as the board finds here petitioner attempts to conflate his afghan military service with his alleged affiliation with the us military and your honor correct that there is nothing in the record that substantiates that he was affiliated or working for the u s military at any point he came here for training and at some point he then left the  the united states and trained on the military did he did and i think it's is it fair to assume that the our government paid for that i am not sure how it was paid for however he left training different issues one is whether any error in not addressing a claim about his relationship with the u s whether it was harmless error because there's no evidence in the record the other question though which i whether it's an impudent political opinion of some sort or whether it's he was a member of a particular social group afghan the military who was affiliated with the united states or some other basis so did he he has ke points in his briefing just some snippets from the record none of them spell out what his argument is so my question is were was that particular asylum claim exhausted different claims and what he presented before the agency this idea of acceptance of western ideology was not fleshed out with it before the immigration judge there was no evidence of that and so that is now something that he claims today which is different than this claim of affiliation with the u s military which was not exhausted importantly so so is there a claim of is as a protected ground affiliation with the united states is that how would that be characterized so he does say in several places that he was has a fear of persecution based on his affiliation with the united states  after all these different opportunities he then files a brief to the board on appeal alleging that he worked as a translator for the u s military which is not substantiated and i think was in counsel has stepped away from the idea of him actually working in that capacity today so there is no evidence in the record that he worked as an english translator and which was in his specific appeal brace to the b a s that right correct and even in that appeal brief if you read the language he acknowledges that he has never brought this up before for fear of sensitive information or security purposes so there is acknowledgement that he did not raise this previously which then would indicate that it is not exhausted and the board what is the evidence in the record you cite the i j a opinion on errant one twenty nine and is there anything else in the record which says he was being persecuted on account of either political opinion  d regarding lestrade the ology or that he was being persecuted by the taliban on account of being a part of a particular social group well what other evidence can you point me to again i think that's that's to customs and border patrol agents when they arrested him on the train so that's that's not correct that was the case and this first hearing to be a thing overturned that it said his lies were excusable because he was given the situation and they don't think he was he didn't say that the problem was the lie but the problem was that you know whether or not he was burned but that he suddenly added this traumatic event later into the he didn't say i don't know what to believe so i thought it cropper to have evidence he says when when you add the dramatic event late in the game and you didn't have in your initial asylum application or anything else that can be the basis for an adver