[00:00:00] Speaker 01:
May it please the court, Aaron Vasey on behalf of the petitioners.

[00:00:03] Speaker 01:
I'd like to reserve three minutes for rebuttal.

[00:00:08] Speaker 01:
This case centers on an adverse credibility finding and the immigration judge's denial of the petitioner's request for a continuance.

[00:00:14] Speaker 01:
In finding the petitioner not credible, the IJ relied on four alleged inconsistencies, one omission, one portion of impossible testimony, and a perceived lack of responsiveness.

[00:00:26] Speaker 01:
I'm going to address each in turn at least until one of you stop me.

[00:00:29] Speaker 03:
Okay, keep your voice up a little bit, okay?

[00:00:31] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:00:31] Speaker 04:
Let me ask you, was there a demeanor finding?

[00:00:34] Speaker 01:
There was not, and I think there's a disconnect, generally speaking, if you look at the judge's opinion.

[00:00:41] Speaker 01:
it characterizes the record as only events that support the judge's finding.

[00:00:45] Speaker 01:
There's no mention of demeanor at all.

[00:00:48] Speaker 01:
I think if you review the record, there are plenty of portions of the record that support the opposite conclusion that the petitioner was credible.

[00:00:57] Speaker 01:
But turning to the four alleged inconsistencies cited by the immigration judge, the first one was that the judge alleged that the petitioner provided conflicting statements about... You're going too quickly and you're

[00:01:09] Speaker 04:
put your talking down instead of out.

[00:01:12] Speaker 04:
Okay, I'll fix this.

[00:01:15] Speaker 01:
The judge said that the petitioner provided conflicting information about the location of where protests began in February 2021.

[00:01:23] Speaker 01:
First, this is not a real inconsistency.

[00:01:26] Speaker 01:
According to the judge, the petitioner said in his written declaration that the protest began

[00:01:32] Speaker 01:
At his house basically outside of his front door and that later during testimony he changed his answer to say that actually the protest began in his neighborhood a short walk from his home.

[00:01:42] Speaker 01:
Again, this is not a true inconsistency.

[00:01:45] Speaker 01:
The petitioner clarified during testimony that

[00:01:47] Speaker 01:
When he used the word home in his written declaration, he was referring not to his literal house, but to his neighborhood, Kazanga.

[00:01:55] Speaker 01:
Again, he received a number of questions from this by the IJ attempting to clarify this.

[00:01:59] Speaker 01:
And at the end, he again maintained that same position.

[00:02:02] Speaker 01:
He said, while I did leave my home, the protest began in my neighborhood a short walk away.

[00:02:08] Speaker 01:
Again, the petitioner's position is that this is not a true inconsistency.

[00:02:13] Speaker 03:
So when the petitioner said in the declaration,

[00:02:17] Speaker 03:
The demonstration began at 10 a.m.

[00:02:20] Speaker 03:
at our home in Kazanga.

[00:02:22] Speaker 03:
Your point is he meant kind of the general area where I live, not my specific residence.

[00:02:27] Speaker 01:
And the word used is not house, it's home, which I think supports that.

[00:02:31] Speaker 01:
Even if this is an inconsistency, I would say that it's trivial.

[00:02:36] Speaker 01:
The petitioner testified consistently about the date of this protest, the purpose of this protest, his involvement and his family's involvement.

[00:02:44] Speaker 01:
whether the protest began outside of his front steps or a short walk away, doesn't enhance the petitioner's claim and doesn't have bearing on his credibility.

[00:02:54] Speaker 02:
They were headed to a particular location, is that right?

[00:02:56] Speaker 01:
Correct.

[00:02:57] Speaker 01:
And the petitioner was able to speak with specificity about the route that the protest was going to take.

[00:03:01] Speaker 01:
Again, that's something that's not mentioned in the IJ's conclusion because I think it goes against the ultimate conclusion reached by the IJ.

[00:03:08] Speaker 01:
Another inconsistency cited by the IJ is conflicting information about whether the petitioner was in the DRC when he was working closer to the border between Angola and the DRC around the time that these events transpired in 2021.

[00:03:22] Speaker 01:
Essentially, at first when questioned about this petitioner says that he hasn't been in the DRC since 2002.

[00:03:29] Speaker 01:
Based on the record, he spent many years of his life as a young man in the DRC and he stopped living in the DRC in 2002.

[00:03:39] Speaker 01:
I don't think this is an inconsistency.

[00:03:41] Speaker 01:
I think this is instead an example of the petitioner merely misunderstanding the question being asked.

[00:03:46] Speaker 01:
You can see this clearly reflected in the transcript at page 213 on line 11.

[00:03:52] Speaker 01:
The petitioner specifically asks, what do you mean by when I was last in the DRC?

[00:03:57] Speaker 01:
Do you mean when I was visiting for tours, and what do you mean?

[00:04:00] Speaker 01:
At that point, counsel for the department clarifies, when were you last on DRC soil?

[00:04:06] Speaker 01:
After that, the petitioner's responses are consistent and detailed.

[00:04:10] Speaker 01:
He says, oh, yes, in that case, I was traveling to the DRC regularly to conduct my business because I worked on the border.

[00:04:19] Speaker 01:
Moreover, when we focus on this inconsistency, the petitioner is never given an opportunity to explain this alleged inconsistency, nor is this.

[00:04:29] Speaker 01:
This court has consistently held that

[00:04:31] Speaker 01:
failure to provide a petition and opportunity to explain an inconsistency does not survive the substantial evidence standard of review.

[00:04:39] Speaker 01:
Nor is this an inconsistency that's so obvious that the IJ doesn't have to bring it to the petitioner's attention, right?

[00:04:45] Speaker 01:
We have a case here where the petitioner's asking clarifying questions and clearly doesn't understand the previous questions he was being asked.

[00:04:52] Speaker 01:
It's not obvious that he was on notice that his previous answers were inconsistent.

[00:04:57] Speaker 01:
The IJ's failure to provide the petitioner an opportunity to explain

[00:05:01] Speaker 01:
therefore doesn't survive substantial, is not supported by substantial evidence.

[00:05:05] Speaker 02:
The bottom line here on this one is that he crossed into the DRC, I guess it is.

[00:05:12] Speaker 02:
Yeah.

[00:05:12] Speaker 02:
In the market area.

[00:05:14] Speaker 01:
Right.

[00:05:15] Speaker 02:
Past business.

[00:05:17] Speaker 01:
Yeah.

[00:05:17] Speaker 01:
And you'll hear me say this repeatedly, a lot of the inconsistencies or issues cited by the AJ, I think really relate to trivial details.

[00:05:24] Speaker 01:
I think any case is going to have these types of inconsistencies.

[00:05:28] Speaker 01:
at the core of the court's analysis of someone's credibility is the question, are they fabricating their claim?

[00:05:34] Speaker 01:
Here, I just don't think there's any logical reason to infer that the petitioner's lying or hiding his involvement or his travel back and forth across the border to enhance his claim.

[00:05:44] Speaker 01:
I don't think it bears on his credibility.

[00:05:48] Speaker 04:
His presence in the DRC would indicate that he was afraid of being in Angola.

[00:05:59] Speaker 04:
And if he said, I've gone back and forth to the DRC all this time, it doesn't indicate that he was afraid of being in Angola.

[00:06:11] Speaker 04:
He was just living in Angola, but crossing for salesman purposes.

[00:06:14] Speaker 01:
And that's true to an extent.

[00:06:16] Speaker 01:
So the petitioner did relocate far away from where this incident of extreme harm took place.

[00:06:21] Speaker 01:
That harm took place in Luanda, basically the capital city of Angola of the country.

[00:06:26] Speaker 01:
The petitioner and his family relocated to this border town.

[00:06:30] Speaker 01:
And for a time, I think they did feel like they were safe there.

[00:06:33] Speaker 03:
How far away was that?

[00:06:34] Speaker 01:
I think the petition testified that it was about a six hour drive away.

[00:06:38] Speaker 01:
And it was only later when the petition was informed that other family members of his were being Sawed out and and murdered that he then felt unsafe and took steps to Live in hiding is what he he testified he was doing around that time and that he did stop working between Between learning that and then fleeing the country The next there's the situation with his father I

[00:07:04] Speaker 02:
I'm sorry, Your Honor.

[00:07:05] Speaker 02:
The other consistency had to do with his father.

[00:07:08] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:07:09] Speaker 01:
So this inconsistency relates to the petitioner's account of the extreme harm that he and his family suffered on this night of February 13th.

[00:07:18] Speaker 01:
So specifically, the IJ took issue with the petitioner's account of what he witnessed of his father's death, of his father's final moments.

[00:07:25] Speaker 01:
Here I just say that case law is clear that courts have to take witnesses as they are, recognizing the normal limits of human

[00:07:32] Speaker 01:
memory and recall, especially where the witness is testifying about traumatic events that involve sexual violence and death.

[00:07:41] Speaker 01:
Here, the petitioner was describing an extremely traumatic event.

[00:07:45] Speaker 01:
and had to pause at one point to collect himself.

[00:07:47] Speaker 01:
You can see that on page 162 of the record if you check the transcript.

[00:07:52] Speaker 01:
Given the traumatic nature of this event, I just think it's wrong for the IJ to hold this against the petitioner's credibility.

[00:07:58] Speaker 01:
Asking any survivor of such a traumatic event these questions repeatedly would naturally result in differing answers, especially when discussing details like this that are really at the core of the traumatic nature of the event, his father's final moments.

[00:08:14] Speaker 04:
There seemed to be a consistent pattern, though, in his responses to inconsistencies between his testimony and his declaration.

[00:08:24] Speaker 04:
When his testimony was consistent with the declaration, he said, yes, I remember that.

[00:08:31] Speaker 04:
But when it was inconsistent, he said his mind was so disheveled that

[00:08:37] Speaker 04:
He doesn't have any explanation for the inconsistency.

[00:08:41] Speaker 01:
Yeah, I would push back on that characterization, but you're right, Your Honor, the petitioner did say repeatedly throughout the testimony that his memory issues kind of were influencing his testimony.

[00:08:51] Speaker 04:
Only when inconsistent.

[00:08:53] Speaker 04:
His memory issues didn't surface if the testimony was consistent between testimony and declaration.

[00:09:03] Speaker 01:
I mean, I think you're right, generally speaking, Your Honor, but again, I don't think that it's fair to impute the petitioner with kind of a nefarious motive on that basis, right?

[00:09:13] Speaker 01:
The petitioner's... He has selective brain problems, apparently.

[00:09:19] Speaker 01:
I would disagree with that caricature, Your Honor, respectfully.

[00:09:22] Speaker 02:
Was the inconsistency about his father having to do with whether or not his father was dead when he saw him or whether or not

[00:09:30] Speaker 01:
So the inconsistency relates to what the petitioner witnessed when he entered the room where this, you know, harm was taking place.

[00:09:38] Speaker 01:
The first hearing he testified that his father was dead when he arrived in the room.

[00:09:42] Speaker 01:
At the second hearing he testified that when he arrived he saw basically the light go out of his father's eyes is what he testified.

[00:09:48] Speaker 01:
And Your Honor, to address your point about the memory issues, I will point out that this is something raised in the petitioner's written declaration.

[00:09:54] Speaker 01:
So before any testimony is taken, he states clearly that this traumatic event that he's experienced in combination with this literal injury to his head has generally speaking affected his memory.

[00:10:08] Speaker 01:
I think that came up during the hearing when kind of pressed on these details.

[00:10:13] Speaker 01:
And I think the petitioner really just

[00:10:15] Speaker 01:
broke down and was unable to respond to questions at some point.

[00:10:18] Speaker 01:
But again, I think that's different from refusing to answer.

[00:10:21] Speaker 01:
I think this is a case where the petitioners struggle to eloquently communicate about the trauma that they experience.

[00:10:29] Speaker 01:
It's not them deliberately fabricating details to bolster their claim.

[00:10:34] Speaker 02:
The last inconsistency had to deal with his work as a salesman.

[00:10:40] Speaker 01:
And so that's another good example.

[00:10:42] Speaker 01:
It's another example where the memory issue kind of came into play.

[00:10:48] Speaker 01:
Again, we acknowledge that the petitioner was not able to explain this conflict.

[00:10:53] Speaker 01:
So he says that he stopped working on a specific date.

[00:10:55] Speaker 01:
His written declaration says that he had continued working.

[00:10:59] Speaker 01:
And the petitioner wasn't able to explain this, but I think this is best viewed as an innocent breakdown of the petitioner's ability to recall the details of his declaration after hours of testimony.

[00:11:10] Speaker 01:
This portion of the transcript specifically takes place after

[00:11:13] Speaker 01:
basically at the end of the petitioner's second hearing.

[00:11:16] Speaker 01:
So he's been questioned for hours, and I think there's just a breakdown, so to speak.

[00:11:22] Speaker 01:
You can see this immediately prior, the petitioner makes a simple mistake providing an incorrect month in response to one of my questions.

[00:11:29] Speaker 01:
The previous answer before this issue, the petitioner's already kind of making simple mistakes, and I think that supports our characterization or our explanation that, again, the petitioner's simply, this is an innocent

[00:11:42] Speaker 01:
failing to explain.

[00:11:45] Speaker 01:
I only have a few seconds left, so I just want to address the omission specifically.

[00:11:49] Speaker 01:
So the IJ also faulted the petitioner for omitting details about past harm that he suffered about a decade before he left the country.

[00:11:57] Speaker 01:
The IJ does exaggerate this omission, so the petitioner had from the very beginning

[00:12:02] Speaker 01:
disclosed his and his family's long history of political activism in Angola, but the IJ is correct that none of this specific past harm was disclosed.

[00:12:11] Speaker 01:
I think the IJ does two things.

[00:12:13] Speaker 03:
Disclosed where?

[00:12:14] Speaker 03:
In the declaration?

[00:12:15] Speaker 01:
In the declaration.

[00:12:16] Speaker 01:
It is disclosed basically at the onset of testimony, so when the IJ asks the petitioner if there's any additions or corrections he wants to make to his document, the petitioner brings this up voluntarily.

[00:12:27] Speaker 03:
But why was this not in the declaration?

[00:12:28] Speaker 03:
He seems to have some different

[00:12:30] Speaker 01:
And I would say that the answer is the same, but the petitioner was providing different portions of that answer in response to repeated questions.

[00:12:39] Speaker 01:
At the first hearing, the petitioner is only asked a single question about this.

[00:12:42] Speaker 01:
Why isn't this included in your declaration?

[00:12:44] Speaker 01:
He says it's my attorney's mistake.

[00:12:46] Speaker 01:
He only receives more questions about that at the second hearing where he provides just more information.

[00:12:51] Speaker 01:
At its core, the petitioner's explanation is that his attorney told him to keep his story brief, so he made the decision to omit this past harm that he suffered because he didn't see it as important to his decision to flee Angola.

[00:13:04] Speaker 01:
And that explanation is supported by the record, right?

[00:13:07] Speaker 01:
This harm took place in 2011, and both the petitioner and his family continued to reside in Angola for many years, I think supporting that explanation.

[00:13:15] Speaker 01:
I also don't think that this omission

[00:13:16] Speaker 01:
tells a much different story, such that it should result in an adverse credibility finding.

[00:13:26] Speaker 01:
And I'm gonna save the rest of my time unless there's any other questions.

[00:13:30] Speaker 03:
Okay, we'll put three minutes for you when you return.

[00:13:32] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:13:33] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:13:50] Speaker 00:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:13:56] Speaker 00:
May it please the court, Stephanie Groff, for the Attorney General.

[00:13:59] Speaker 00:
Your Honors, this court should deny the petition for review as the adverse credibility determination here is amply supported by the record.

[00:14:07] Speaker 00:
The immigration judge here identified numerous specific cogent reasons for this holding, and Martin's arguments today, to the contrary, do not compel a contrary conclusion.

[00:14:19] Speaker 00:
And that's the main thing missing here, is what is the standard of review for this court in looking at adverse credibility determinations.

[00:14:26] Speaker 00:
The adverse credibility determination needs to be supported by substantial evidence.

[00:14:31] Speaker 00:
The record needs to compel a contrary conclusion.

[00:14:34] Speaker 00:
It is not a situation where there may be two inconsistent views of the evidence, as this court in Hussein versus Rosen has held.

[00:14:41] Speaker 00:
If there are two inconsistent views, that doesn't render the agency's finding

[00:14:46] Speaker 00:
Unsupported by substantial evidence.

[00:14:48] Speaker 03:
Well, so how about, I mean, we can just start looking through these.

[00:14:50] Speaker 03:
I mean, the location where the protest began.

[00:14:53] Speaker 03:
So how is that one supported?

[00:14:57] Speaker 00:
By substantial evidence, Your Honor, sure.

[00:15:00] Speaker 03:
Not even an inconsistency.

[00:15:02] Speaker 00:
Well, we believe that it is an inconsistency.

[00:15:06] Speaker 00:
I'll first note why.

[00:15:07] Speaker 00:
In his declaration, he stated that the protest started at his home.

[00:15:12] Speaker 00:
Then in both his initial merits hearing and his subsequent merits hearing, he provided various answers to where specifically it started.

[00:15:21] Speaker 00:
He noted that he did have to walk

[00:15:23] Speaker 00:
10 to 15 minutes to the start of the protest and ultimately the immigration judge noted all this and noted that this may be as my friend on the other side trivial but said that it contributes to the overall inconsistent portrait and painting that he has here for his claim.

[00:15:40] Speaker 03:
Isn't this kind of a minor point like whether it began at his house or basically near his house in the same area?

[00:15:47] Speaker 00:
Well, we would argue that Martins is attempting to minimize this inconsistency.

[00:15:52] Speaker 00:
It is not the strongest one, but as this court is well aware, after the Real ID Act, inconsistencies do not need to go to the heart of the claim.

[00:16:01] Speaker 03:
Well, so what do you think are the strongest ones?

[00:16:03] Speaker 03:
If this is not the strongest one, what would it be?

[00:16:05] Speaker 00:
Sure.

[00:16:05] Speaker 00:
And this court can, if you find that's not supported by substantial evidence,

[00:16:09] Speaker 00:
The immigration judge's decision is amply supported by other aspects.

[00:16:13] Speaker 00:
The strongest one we would argue is related to his father's death.

[00:16:18] Speaker 00:
Specifically, in his declaration, he noted that when this incident happened in February 14th, he heard shots, he escorted his family out, and when he came back, his father was dead.

[00:16:28] Speaker 00:
during the first merits hearing he testified to the same that my father was shot when I came back I saw him dead.

[00:16:34] Speaker 00:
At a subsequent merits hearing he noted that he saw his father crawling into the living room so very different than dead and then eventually died.

[00:16:44] Speaker 00:
He was confronted with these inconsistencies with the difference between his declaration with the first merits hearing

[00:16:50] Speaker 00:
And the immigration judge found his responses were not supported.

[00:16:55] Speaker 00:
And that is specifically supported by substantial evidence.

[00:16:59] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:16:59] Speaker 04:
Do you agree there was no demeanor finding?

[00:17:01] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:17:02] Speaker 00:
The immigration judge here did not rely on demeanor, rather looked at inconsistencies, omissions, responsiveness.

[00:17:10] Speaker 00:
Demeanor is not determinative, and it can still be upheld even though there is none.

[00:17:16] Speaker 00:
But specifically with the father's

[00:17:19] Speaker 00:
passing.

[00:17:20] Speaker 00:
I want to know as we argued in our open or responsive brief that a lot of what Martin's and my friend on the other side today are arguing are post hoc rationalizations that Martin himself did not state when he was confronted with this inconsistency.

[00:17:34] Speaker 00:
He did not specifically note that it was because he experienced trauma.

[00:17:39] Speaker 00:
And while, yes, in his declaration, he noted that these are traumatic incidences, the immigration judge's decision addressed this and held, as noted before, that the judge was not sure what actually happened here.

[00:17:51] Speaker 00:
And when a judge finds that something, it's not actually clear, that's not necessarily the judge was saying that he is a liar, that he doesn't believe everything.

[00:17:59] Speaker 00:
But the judge was left with the conclusion he was not sure what happened.

[00:18:04] Speaker 00:
And that we would argue is the strongest.

[00:18:05] Speaker 04:
Is it that much of a difference between saying,

[00:18:08] Speaker 04:
When I arrived home, my father was dead.

[00:18:10] Speaker 04:
To say, when I arrived home, my father was crawling into the living room and dying.

[00:18:16] Speaker 00:
Well, yes, Honor.

[00:18:19] Speaker 00:
We do think that it's a strong difference because the immigration judge here found that it was.

[00:18:25] Speaker 00:
And we think... I mean, why is it such a strong difference?

[00:18:28] Speaker 00:
I don't understand.

[00:18:29] Speaker 00:
Because this is a traumatic moment that Martins has claimed is the crux of why.

[00:18:35] Speaker 02:
That his father, you know, either dead or dying.

[00:18:37] Speaker 02:
What difference does it make?

[00:18:39] Speaker 00:
Well, it makes a difference because when he was confronted with it, he wasn't able to fully explain why he stated in both the declaration and his testimony what the difference was.

[00:18:49] Speaker 02:
Don't think it would be hard for somebody to explain that, to see their father?

[00:18:52] Speaker 00:
Of course, your honor, the government's not claiming that this is a traumatic incident.

[00:18:57] Speaker 00:
But what the court needs to look at is whether the record compels a contrary conclusion.

[00:19:01] Speaker 00:
And the judge here, this is not something where the judge says, I don't believe him.

[00:19:05] Speaker 00:
The judge provided various reasons why, specifically noting that the

[00:19:11] Speaker 00:
when attempt to clarify, he was unable to explain.

[00:19:14] Speaker 00:
He just noted, in my declaration, I provided a general account.

[00:19:16] Speaker 00:
That does not reflect why at his initial testimony, he stated one thing.

[00:19:20] Speaker 00:
And again, while the Real Idea Act no longer requires inconsistencies to go to the heart of the claim, the immigration judge here found that... It requires inconsistencies.

[00:19:30] Speaker 00:
It does.

[00:19:31] Speaker 04:
And relating the two versions of his father being killed doesn't seem to me to be that much of an inconsistency.

[00:19:39] Speaker 04:
Is it to you?

[00:19:41] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor, we argue that it is an inconsistency and specifically here because there are various accounts of what happened.

[00:19:48] Speaker 00:
But if this court, again, were to not agree with us on the start of the protest and this, we still believe that there are various other aspects of the immigration finding.

[00:19:59] Speaker 04:
How about him going to the DRC?

[00:20:01] Speaker 00:
That is one of our weaker supported claims.

[00:20:05] Speaker 00:
But as you, Judge Baya, noted with my friend on the other side, one reason that the judge found that was important is because he was afraid to be in Angola.

[00:20:14] Speaker 00:
And then he's later testifying that he's traveling back and forth, which the judge found that that's an indication that, again, it is not clear what happened to him.

[00:20:23] Speaker 00:
If everything he said happened to him before happened, then why is he traveling for work?

[00:20:27] Speaker 00:
and unclear.

[00:20:28] Speaker 00:
I'll also note with traveling to the DRC, my friend on the other side noted that he wasn't confronted with this inconsistency.

[00:20:35] Speaker 00:
As we pointed out in our brief, that was not raised in their opening brief, so we would argue that it's waived the claim that the judge...

[00:20:45] Speaker 00:
Well, the judge said, yes, I didn't confront you with this inconsistency, but it's a clear one.

[00:20:51] Speaker 00:
And in their opening brief, they didn't mention that he was not confronted.

[00:20:56] Speaker 00:
But nonetheless, as the judge found, if an inconsistency is clear and obvious, then it doesn't need to be brought up.

[00:21:05] Speaker 00:
I would point this court to the second.

[00:21:08] Speaker 03:
How would this meet that standard just when he's asking for clarification?

[00:21:11] Speaker 03:
Like, there does seem to be some

[00:21:13] Speaker 03:
he seems to be trying to to offer this information and there's a maybe some confusion but

[00:21:19] Speaker 03:
Regardless, how would this be an obvious inconsistency under that set of circumstances?

[00:21:25] Speaker 00:
Sure.

[00:21:27] Speaker 00:
The immigration judge found that it was an obvious inconsistency because, again, he specifically noted that whether or not he was leaving Angola after what he claimed these traumatic incidents happened and whether he left to go to the DRC, whether he was afraid, that is a problem.

[00:21:45] Speaker 00:
And I'll also note this also ties back to

[00:21:47] Speaker 00:
when he claims he was in hiding.

[00:21:49] Speaker 00:
That was another inconsistency that the immigration judge relied on.

[00:21:54] Speaker 00:
Martin stated that he moved his family miles away.

[00:21:57] Speaker 00:
He remained in hiding, but later was confronted with information that he continued to work and then

[00:22:02] Speaker 00:
continued to cross into the border, he was unable to explain why that happened.

[00:22:08] Speaker 00:
And today, and in their briefing, Martin's counsel notes that he was exhausted, traumatic incidences happen, but this court can't credit attorney's statements and post-hoc rationalizations.

[00:22:19] Speaker 00:
I also want to point this court to what we would argue is our second strongest, is the incident at the hospital.

[00:22:24] Speaker 00:
After the February 14th attack, Martins testified that he went to the hospital with his mother and that he remained there for one night because he believed that's all he wanted.

[00:22:35] Speaker 00:
However, the judge noted and confronted him with the supporting evidence that stated there were two specific supporting pieces of medical documents, both by the same doctor

[00:22:45] Speaker 00:
that were dated February 14th, but listed his discharge date two separate dates, a week in advance and I believe two weeks in advance.

[00:22:53] Speaker 00:
When confronted with this, Martin stated that he wasn't sure why it was dated and he only wanted to stay one day and left.

[00:23:00] Speaker 00:
Additionally, the immigration judge found this unreasonable and not persuasive that his mother would have stayed in the hospital and was a well-known

[00:23:10] Speaker 00:
You need a member, and Mr. Martins was afraid to stay because he was afraid the government would seek him out for harm.

[00:23:16] Speaker 00:
This is strongly supported by the record evidence.

[00:23:19] Speaker 00:
There are inconsistencies.

[00:23:20] Speaker 00:
It's not clear.

[00:23:21] Speaker 00:
I'll also note that the documentary evidence doesn't fit... Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.

[00:23:26] Speaker 02:
What's inconsistent about that?

[00:23:28] Speaker 00:
Inconsistent with his testimony that he... Not between what happened to his mother and him, but... No, the incons... Sorry, the inconsistencies is...

[00:23:37] Speaker 00:
related to how long he stayed in the hospital.

[00:23:41] Speaker 03:
Inconsistent with the documents?

[00:23:42] Speaker 00:
Inconsistent with the documents.

[00:23:44] Speaker 00:
The two documents themselves are inconsistent.

[00:23:47] Speaker 00:
There's two dates of his release.

[00:23:49] Speaker 00:
It's also inconsistent with his statement that he stayed in the hospital for one day.

[00:23:53] Speaker 00:
And then separate and apart, the immigration judge took issue with it because he stated, I only stayed one day because I was afraid the government would find me.

[00:24:01] Speaker 00:
And yet he testified that his mother remained in the hospital longer.

[00:24:04] Speaker 00:
So when confronted with that, the judge asked, why would your mother stay if she's well-known protester and she did not have any issues?

[00:24:14] Speaker 00:
And the immigration judge found his answers.

[00:24:17] Speaker 00:
Not any medical issues?

[00:24:19] Speaker 00:
Issues with the government attacking her in the hospital.

[00:24:22] Speaker 00:
So the reason Martin stated that he was afraid to and didn't want to remain in the hospital longer is because he didn't want to call attention to himself with the government.

[00:24:30] Speaker 02:
I thought his mother, he saw his mother get raped.

[00:24:34] Speaker 02:
Yes, Your Honor, and so she's been hurt a little bit more, injured a little bit more.

[00:24:38] Speaker 00:
Of course, Your Honor, and the government is not contesting that aspect of it.

[00:24:43] Speaker 00:
However, what the immigration judge took issue with here is her being sought out by the government and his fear that he would not stay because he didn't want to be sought out from the government, but his mother remained.

[00:24:56] Speaker 04:
So your position is that the hospital documents show that he stayed more than one night.

[00:25:02] Speaker 00:
The hospital documents list that he has a release date a week in advance and another almost two weeks in advance.

[00:25:09] Speaker 04:
That would show that he'd been more seriously hurt than staying for one night.

[00:25:15] Speaker 00:
Potentially, Your Honor.

[00:25:16] Speaker 00:
The documents themselves don't go into extensive detail of what specifically happened to him, but they were dated the date of his release or the date of his entrance into the hospital.

[00:25:26] Speaker 04:
It seems to me the inconsistency of saying he was only there for one night would go against his case.

[00:25:33] Speaker 04:
that he was beaten by the government police.

[00:25:37] Speaker 04:
Because if he stays there only one night, then that's a relatively slight injury.

[00:25:43] Speaker 04:
But if he stays there a week or two weeks, it would show that he was more injured.

[00:25:48] Speaker 04:
So it would be in his interest to say he stayed there longer.

[00:25:53] Speaker 04:
And why is that a material inconsistency?

[00:25:57] Speaker 00:
Sure, Your Honor.

[00:25:57] Speaker 00:
And I understand this court's concern with the concept of some of these statements that were inconsistent, didn't necessarily help his claim.

[00:26:06] Speaker 00:
And it is can be very minutiae and specific.

[00:26:11] Speaker 00:
But I point back to what this court needs to look at, whether the record compels a contrary conclusion.

[00:26:17] Speaker 00:
The Supreme Court's recent decision in Ming Dai held that if substantial evidence supports the adjudicator's version of it, then this court cannot overturn it, even if Your Honors would disagree.

[00:26:28] Speaker 00:
And I think that's really what's important here.

[00:26:30] Speaker 03:
But don't we have the option to send it back for a further evaluation if we feel that some kind of supporting basis for this finding are not supported?

[00:26:41] Speaker 00:
If certain ones you if you find almost all of them are however We argued that some of them on their own are strong enough for instance the cooperative evidence aspect at this We've argued that a lot of the cooperative evidence also contains inconsistencies as I noted I didn't mention yet, but the declarations he submitted affidavits all were dated

[00:27:04] Speaker 00:
um, all noted that the date of his main incident of harm was in 2023 when he was already in the United States.

[00:27:10] Speaker 00:
Again, this left the immigration judge who thoroughly looked at the record here and with this conviction of not fully understanding what happened to Martin's and what, uh, his declaration said that he was injured in Angola in 2023.

[00:27:27] Speaker 00:
The three supporting affidavits that he sought from family members and friends all noted that the incident on February 14th happened in 2023.

[00:27:37] Speaker 00:
And in my friend on the other side's brief explaining that stated that it was likely due to, you know, an error Martin said, or maybe there was an independent error.

[00:27:47] Speaker 00:
However, that indicates that these affidavits were not independently created based on memories and knowledge that these people had specifically themselves.

[00:27:58] Speaker 04:
But yes, if this court were to conclude that that doesn't go to his credibility for inconsistencies, it just goes to the evidence that was adduced by his counsel.

[00:28:10] Speaker 00:
Well, we were I was arguing not necessarily his adverse credibility, but the cooperation finding.

[00:28:16] Speaker 00:
So the evidence here, the documentary evidence, didn't fill the gap to make up for his adverse credibility.

[00:28:23] Speaker 00:
Now, if this court were to find that these inconsistencies, omissions, and embellishments, which I haven't yet mentioned, are not enough, then yes, remand would be appropriate.

[00:28:33] Speaker 00:
I'll also note here that Petitioner has not challenged

[00:28:36] Speaker 00:
The agencies independent finding the judge here said that even with despite all this country conditions evidence you didn't meet your burden, but I do want to point I only have 13 seconds, but petitioner did not include in his original declaration any of the harm that he claims to experience in the 2011.

[00:28:55] Speaker 00:
And the immigration judge here appropriately found that it seemed that he was embellishing his testimony in order to potentially seek relief.

[00:29:04] Speaker 02:
Didn't he make some reference to his involvement in the 2011 incidents?

[00:29:10] Speaker 00:
He did not specifically state 2011 incident, but he did state that he attended protests with his family.

[00:29:16] Speaker 00:
But he did note, I believe in that declaration, if I'm remembering correctly, that his parents were injured and family members were injured.

[00:29:22] Speaker 00:
So the immigration judge took issue with that because when presented for testimony, he then noted that he was harmed, he was beaten, he was sprayed.

[00:29:31] Speaker 00:
And when confronted with this, it was not, he provided various accounts that the judge, again, was left with a firm conclusion of not knowing what happened

[00:29:39] Speaker 00:
to him and ultimately finding him not credible.

[00:29:43] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:29:44] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:29:59] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:30:00] Speaker 01:
So first I want to address my colleague's, I guess, statement about these embellishments.

[00:30:05] Speaker 01:
I think that if you set aside these new facts related to this omission, this past harm that occurred in 2011, this case still already has an immense amount of harm that I think rises to the level of not just persecution but torture.

[00:30:19] Speaker 01:
We have murder and rape and really the worst types of violence.

[00:30:23] Speaker 01:
These new details, though relevant to the

[00:30:26] Speaker 01:
petitioners' political history.

[00:30:27] Speaker 01:
I don't think actually move the needle in the legal analysis of the case, and I don't think they should be construed as embellishments.

[00:30:34] Speaker 01:
Next, I want to talk about

[00:30:36] Speaker 01:
The IJ's I guess insistence that portions of the petitioners testimony were implausible.

[00:30:41] Speaker 01:
This again relates to his explanation that he left the hospital early because he was afraid of being apprehended by the police while his mother remained in the hospital.

[00:30:51] Speaker 01:
The judge is correct that his mother was also an UNITA member, but the judge ignores other evidence in the record that could

[00:30:56] Speaker 01:
Equally explain this right the fact that the petitioner's mother's injuries were more severe that she was beaten and raped and that that might prevent her from leaving the hospital early And this is also an example where I don't think that IJ gave the petition an opportunity to explain this Potential issue which again means that I don't think it's this aspect of the judge's decision is supported by substantial evidence What's your explanation with respect to the different dates on the medical records again?

[00:31:25] Speaker 01:
A few explanations, but the documents are all issued on the date that the petitioner was admitted to the hospital, which I think supports his explanation that he was admitted to the hospital, but he wanted to leave.

[00:31:37] Speaker 01:
And so he was obtaining these documents from the hospital, and that's why they're dated that date.

[00:31:41] Speaker 01:
And that might also be why they weren't corrected to reflect how long he stayed or when he was discharged.

[00:31:47] Speaker 01:
Again, as Your Honor pointed out, if this is a petitioner fabricating his claim,

[00:31:52] Speaker 01:
it would make more sense for him to say, oh yeah, I was at the hospital for the amount of time that my medical documents indicate, instead of changing his story like this.

[00:32:00] Speaker 01:
While I have time, I also just want to briefly touch on the denial of the petitioner's motion for continuance.

[00:32:05] Speaker 01:
The petitioner sought more time so that his spouse, who had just arrived in the United States, could travel to Washington.

[00:32:10] Speaker 04:
I don't think you can argue that, because you didn't bring it up in your opening argument.

[00:32:14] Speaker 04:
And counsel didn't have an opportunity to meet that.

[00:32:17] Speaker 04:
So the continuance issue, I think, is waived.

[00:32:20] Speaker 01:
Okay, I'll leave that for the briefs then.

[00:32:23] Speaker 01:
In that case with my last 30 seconds, so I'll just talk about the father's death and how that detail doesn't, I think, affect the case.

[00:32:31] Speaker 01:
The petitioner testified consistently about the fact that his father was killed, the identity of the people that killed him, and other specific details, the statements that these attackers are making.

[00:32:41] Speaker 01:
This alleged inconsistency about whether his father was alive or not when he entered the room really, again, doesn't move the needle and shouldn't be seen as the petitioner attempting to enhance his claim.

[00:32:54] Speaker 01:
And then, in closing, I'll just say that I think that we've pointed out that there are numerous and serious holes in the judge's analysis of this case.

[00:33:06] Speaker 01:
I don't think the judge's adverse credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence.

[00:33:11] Speaker 01:
We would ask this court to grant the petition and overturn the judge's adverse credibility finding.

[00:33:15] Speaker 02:
And remand it back to the agency for consideration of all the other assets.

[00:33:18] Speaker 01:
Right, the judge did not reach past persecution or nexus or any of those other issues.

[00:33:25] Speaker 03:
Okay, thank you.

[00:33:26] Speaker 03:
We thank both counsel for the briefing and argument.

[00:33:28] Speaker 03:
This case is submitted.

[00:33:29] Speaker 03:
That concludes our calendar for this morning and we'll stand in recess until tomorrow.