Legal Case Summary

The matter under advisement. And call our second case this morning. Bullittov, the attorney general. Numbers 11-30-48, and 11-43-57. Mr. Spivec and Ms. Tyler. I'm sorry, go ahead ahead. Good morning, Ron. My name is Lawrence Spivec. I represent the petition in the panel. Bullittov, I'd like to respectfully request to reserve a three minutes for you. That's fine. Go right ahead. Good morning, Ron. Let me just ask one question here. When, or start off with some questions. When was Mr. Bullittov in prisoned in the late 90s? Was it 98, 99, or when? It was both, Ron

. It was from approximately November, 1998 through April, 1999. So he was there about five, six months? Yes, Ron. Because so if the things were so bad, I counted up starting in June of 99. No, December of 1999, excuse me. There's about eight or nine times. He goes back and forth between the United States and either Russia or Kazakhstan. Is that correct? Yes, Ron. So how does, it's counterintuitive that there is a significant issue if he's going to continue going back and forth, back and forth many times? Well, no, you're on it again. First of all, there was only one return trip to Kazakhstan after that for the purpose of selling what remained and trying to obtain Russian citizenship. He moved to Russia in 2000. He testified in the proceeding that he had no contact with any gang members on behalf of the corrupt officials or any indication in Russia that he would have any problems with them until December 2002. After that encounter, he only left and returned once. There was a final threat in May 2003, a very serious threat that he would be killed and then he never returned at all. And during that time, of course, he had no knowledge that they were hatching this entire plan to pin a contract murder on him, which events transpired long after he was gone. And ironically, all these events start only after the Kazakh officials and the officials who were working with them in the Russian government discovered this. And it's significant that the Interpol charges did not come to his knowledge until after he was placed in federal custody. He had no knowledge of this, had he known of this. He probably would have applied for a sinal, much sooner, knowing that the Kazakh government had the ability to reach across the ocean to try and find them

. Because first of all, as I mentioned earlier, they never did anything to try and find them for two and a half years in Russia. But when he would bat these number of times, how many times of those eight or nine subsequent through his detention in 98, 99 did he go back to Kazakhstan? I believe he only went once in the end of 99 after the after's release of detention. Has he been successful in getting Russian citizenship? Yes, he obtained in 2000. And so that's why the government is trying to remove him to Russia and not to Kazakhstan. Okay. So what sounds like in Russia, which he's gone back to many times, does, what does he fear going back to Russia as opposed to Kazakhstan now? Well, he fears, he fears, first of all, that he would be persecuted on account of his nationality, his Jewish nationality, by the same group of corrupt officials. They couldn't confiscate, that successfully confiscated his businesses in Kazakhstan. One of whom is this Colonel Kalikov, who brought the Yermalayevs in to threaten him in Russia in 2002 and again in 2003. Also, what's significant, even if you look at the verdict that's come from Kazakhstan, that somehow, these Yermalayev people were able to get to Russian police to cross over into Kazakhstan to prosecute the people who were supposedly actually carried out the contract. This is a Yermalayev, who has no governmental connections, whatsoever, and somehow seems to have this incredible amount of influence that he can get Russian police to cross the border without any inter-country cooperation agreement to go prosecute a crime, investigate a crime in Kazakhstan. So, yes. Yeah, I was just saying, basically, whatever was going on in Kazakhstan and Russia, basically the IJ primarily, although he had other alternative thoughts, primarily ruled against your client because he felt on the grounds of credibility. Yes. And we're in a situation on appeal here where, unless we can decide that a reasonable fact-hunter would be compelled to conclude the client was credible, the decision by the fact that the fact-hunter IJ has to stand, what in the record would compel an appeal court to say that this fact-finding that he was incredible, and that's the primary reason they ruled against your client? Why are we compelled to find that to be in error? Well, first of all, because most of the alleged inconsistencies by a side of the IJ don't even exist. Well, primarily the conviction that wasn't revealed, that's one of the things about the main thing he relied on. That's correct. And that was whether it was a proper conviction or not, it was a conviction, and I think the IJ was very influenced by that as anyone would be, that whether it was a proper conviction or political conviction or whatever, it wasn't revealed. However, the political nature of the prosecution could not have been brought up in the federal trial

. The issue in the federal trial, at least for purposes of the charging document, is, did you answer the question incorrectly on the I-485? And he agrees, yes, I answered the question incorrectly on the I-485, but it wasn't made clear to him that he had the opportunity to challenge, and in the scope of the federal charge, there really isn't any way to challenge the illegality of the arrests in Kazakhstan itself. Because then how could we or should we, in what way could we say that the fact-finding by the IJ was we're compelled, not that we would have gone along with your position, I say, that's a reasonable position, I'll go that way. But we have to go beyond that, say, not only is it reasonable, but we're compelled to say that his fact-finding in determining that your client is not credible, is something we're compelled to reverse. Based on the record before us. Right, because as I pointed out in my brief, a lot of the alleged inconsistencies between the application or within the testimony don't exist, they say, for example, he said he only suffered bruises, but he said I was beaten badly, very clearly. But the point is, let's just take one of those on that. He said he was beaten so badly that he thought he had a possible fractured skull, and there's no corroboration, but you don't really have to go to medical authorities in Kazakhstan to get the corroboration, for example, if you had a fractured skull, you could merely have an x-ray taken here, unless it's a, he was a young person which he wasn't, and you had a hairline displaced fracture, it's gonna show up. But again, he's saying he thought he had a fractured skull, there's no, he's not alleging through out the continuation of the case. But what did he have, what evidence did he have from doctors over here that there were, that showed that there was, at some point in time, this person had been abused in a way that sounds like he had some, from the descriptions, some primitive injuries. Well, you're on again, he was in detention from day one, and to the present day that he was in the federal custody, it's extremely difficult to get a doctor, like when I have a client on the outside to go to physicians' committee for human rights or someone else, it's extremely difficult to get someone into a detention facility for an examination. What they're not allowed in? It's difficult to set it up, unless the only way that I've ever been successful is when the US Public Health Services and Evidence from their own treatment of the patient, while he's in detention. You can't file a motion or petition to have your doctor go in and examine the client? I'm not knowledgeable of that, so I just know that it wasn't done, and I know that I've had difficulty in that particular facility in getting anyone into examine anybody at the Elizabeth detention center. This seems to relate somewhat to the IJs challenging of your client about the lack of corroboration, and his answer was sort of like, well, why would I? Did he say why at one point? He said why with regard to why would you need my father's letter, but not the, he showed them the scar on his nose in the hearing. This is where it is. He just couldn't prove that the origin of it, because he's not a medical expert. On the origin's critical, though, right? Because if it happened in a bar fight or something, that doesn't help your claim, but if it was the authority beating him up, it does help your claim. Right, but again. So the fact of a broken nose or an injured nose isn't probative one way or the other

. You have to tie it to the cause, right? That's part of it. Of course, the existence of the injury itself is there, and it hasn't been disputed by the government because trial counsel saw it. However, it again, it is very hard to do, and it's an expedited proceeding, and he did not have the, he did not have any counsel until April 2010, and the hearing was only a few months like that. But the letter from the father wouldn't have been that much to expect, would it? Except that he tried to show it to the IJ, and it turns out that Mr. D. Romando had it in his file, the entire time, but it was attached to another of the document, and that's why it wasn't produced. It wasn't he admitted, it was in his file. So there was a letter from the father? Absolutely, it was a letter from the father. And I produced it on the motion to reopen. In addition to which the prior IJ Judge Reichenberg said, you can have anyone testify telephonically over the fall from overseas, and the father stated in his letter, in one of his later letters, that he was ready to testify, but no one called him. Because it was a very long hearing, and it went to the end of the day, and perhaps that's why the IJ, perhaps that's why it wasn't presented, but he was available. And the letter, most compellingly, in Mr. D. Romando's response, he says, I have the letter, but it was attached to another 40-page document. And honestly, it appears that Mr. D. Romando just didn't bother to look at the 40-page document and see that the father's letter was attached to. Incidentally, do we have jurisdiction for the review of the BIA's initial decision, and it challenged the agency's chain circumstance to be termination? Do we have jurisdiction even to hear that claim? On the existing precedent, it would certainly appear not

. I'm arguing that the precedent is. Okay, you'll be fine. That's, that's, that's, I can see you. Okay. Other than that, parking back to Judge Ambrose Question You, he was actually going back and claiming he would mistreat him back to the early 1990s. The late 1990s problem. I thought it was early. He also said that he had threats when he bought the grocery chain. Yes, I thought it was back to the early 1990s. Right, right. Yeah, okay. And yet, during that period of time, Judge Ambrose, you, I just, I just, I just, I just, I just, I just, he went back and forth any number of times. It doesn't make sense that if they were mistreating him, not far back to the early 1990s, he would have been going, shuttling back and forth. What, does that, they, I mean, is that something that the IJ could have taken into consideration? I believe that she just counted the number of trips and made a decision based on that. But more importantly, he sent his whole family to the United States in 1995. They never came back. Okay. He thought that he, and if you read a testimony, he thought that he could work it out by working with groups like the Yermalayevs and so on to counteract the corrupt officials and other groups

. And those other groups basically just took his money. And didn't do anything. But he, you know, unfortunately, that appears to be a way of life for a minority businessman in Kazakhstan. We would be a poor ad here, but this is what he had to do in order to keep his business going. And the trips were necessary to pursue his business. And to, and you know, he had everything there. It didn't make, it would be extremely difficult for him to have lost at that time before his arrest. He had all these businesses and he was hoping to cut it, you know, to pacify the government officials who want to take over the businesses and work some of the range and where they would stop bothering it. And it really wasn't until this arrest, this unjustified arrest occurred that he realized that there's no way of pacifying anymore. I need to get out and I need to get Russian citizenship. So if he's removed now, just to refresh what we talked about a few minutes ago, he'll be removed to Russia. Will there be an attempt from Kazakhstan to have him removed from Russia to Kazakhstan? Yes, but it may not be immediate as we, aside of the side and fellow example, a person who Kazakhstan wanted stayed for eight months in a Russian prison before he was finally extradited. There's a good chance that Mr. Bullittov could be physically eliminated in a Russian prison where conditions are admittedly life-threatening before he ever gets to Kazakhstan. So just because there's a theoretical agreement, doesn't mean he's ever going to get to Kazakhstan. Thank you. We'll hear from Mr. Pistano

. Good morning, Your Honors. May it please the court. My name is Julia Tyler, and I represent the Attorney General of the United States in this immigration case. I have two issues. One on the merits and one on the motion to reopen. On the merits, the IJ title here did, you know, a very comprehensive job. But when it came to adverse credibility, she said that the primary reason that she finds adverse credibility is because he had lied before, but what he did by pleading guilty was he actually told the truth that he had lied when he first came here. So in effect, she's double-dipping. She's saying, because he told the truth about that he once upon a time lied, therefore he has to be found adversely credible. That doesn't really seem to, and there's no cases that she cited that would allow you to do that. I'd be happy to address that, Your Honor. First, I don't think that the immigration judge relied primarily on... That was the first thing on page 21. It is the first thing she mentions, and I think she sets the groundwork. She says that the provision of false information in order to receive an immigration benefit discredits his current testimony and causes it to be viewed cautiously. Now, also, it's important to remember the chronology of these events

. He filed his adjustment application in January of 2004, and then many years later, took many years for the interview to take place. And during this time, Department of Homeland Security was communicating and trying to ascertain whether or not MECLA Limited had actually had a counterpart in Kazakhstan. And it was through that investigation that they ascertained from the Kazakh government that it was a fraudulent company that the documents that had been submitted to create MECLA were fraudulent. And the Kazakh government also reported that he had been arrested for smuggling and forgery in April of 1998, and held there until, I'm sorry, November of 1998, and held there until April of 1999. Then Bullitov went to and is at his adjustment interview. He was asked a second time whether or not everything that he stated in his I-45 application was correct, and he said it was. It was at that time that he was charged with his misrepresentation, at which point he did plead guilty. And he testified in his removal hearing that he pled guilty because he was guilty. I understand that they are now, that he is now making a technical hard. There he's now telling the truth. I pled guilty because I was guilty. Well, originally on direct examination, Judge Ambroke, he had all kinds of excuses for why he pled guilty. And he did not take ownership of his plea. He said that he had been told that his family was going to be deported. He said that he didn't think it was illegal arrest. And then on cross examination, those areas were pursued. And he was asked, did you raise this issue that you did not believe you were arrested in Kazakhstan was a legal arrest? Did you raise that with the judge? No, I didn't raise that with the judge. And he was eventually forced to admit, I pled guilty because I was guilty

. And I also would like to comment that this argument from Petitioner's counsel that this is some sort of, you know, this is some sort of a technical violation. When you say in a hearing that you pled guilty because you're guilty, he pled guilty to knowingly and intentionally providing fraudulent information on his adjustment application. And I think the immigration judge, although it was not her sole basis for fighting him at first, the creditable, it wasn't important. No, but the other items were like, he was a year or two off here. He was a year or two off there. They really pale. And she puts this one front and center. Could I, Judge Amber, could I address the issues of the trips back and forth? Because I think that you could go ahead. Really, really important area. I want to just get back very quickly here. It's important to remember, in 1990, I think one of you pointed out, he's been having trouble with these gangs since 1992 or 1993. He said that his business had been destroyed, because Windows have been blown out, and his offices have been destroyed. He claimed that he'd been stabbed in the chest as early as 1992 or 1993. He says his family to the United States in 1995, because he calls it a savage country, and they will not be safe there. He was arrested and detained in November of 1998, and he doesn't get released until April of 1999. He was told by these individuals, while he was in prison, allegedly, that they'll find him anywhere. They will find him on the moon. And by the way, he was also told, and this is in the record at pages 376, to 378

. He was also told by Colonel Nugiriliyab about the killings of Hussein Salay. He was told in prison, we will hang these killings on you. We can do that, because he claims that Nugiriliyab told him, it's our, we were the ones who tell who gets in and who gets out of cause of prison. So the notion that he had a new and unique reason to seek asylum in the United States, because the Interpol warrant just just not stand up against the facts. He was told in prison. Let me get quickly back to the trips back and forth. He waited eight months after he was released from the cause of prison in April of 1999. He even come to the United States. He stayed one month and he returned. He returned and despite threats of harm and promises of ongoing punishment, if he did not accede to their demands. He claimed he went back. Now, when you left in December of 1990, did you leave from cause of stands? The United States are from Russia. He left from Kazakhstan and he returned to Kazakhstan. And when he was asked about this, he testified that he needed to go back so he could sell some property that he had in Kazakhstan. But that doesn't make any sense because his father claims that after he got out of prison, he had nothing. He was laid bare. He had nothing but the shirt on his back. He testified on direct examination that after he was released from prison in April of 1999, he had nothing. He had no property. The banks had sold everything he owned. And yet all of a sudden, he's got to go back and sell things. He starts a new business in Kazakhstan after he was released from prison. I don't know how someone does that. Let me have no ask. Did you get Kazakhstan? I'm sorry? In Kazakhstan. He started a new business in Kazakhstan selling energy. And let me quickly address also, is I think this is just as important. The trip back. When did that new business start? Let's see. Roughly. I'm sorry. I don't have it at my fingertips, but he did. But it was after April of 1999. Oh, yes. It was after that. Sorry

. He had no property. The banks had sold everything he owned. And yet all of a sudden, he's got to go back and sell things. He starts a new business in Kazakhstan after he was released from prison. I don't know how someone does that. Let me have no ask. Did you get Kazakhstan? I'm sorry? In Kazakhstan. He started a new business in Kazakhstan selling energy. And let me quickly address also, is I think this is just as important. The trip back. When did that new business start? Let's see. Roughly. I'm sorry. I don't have it at my fingertips, but he did. But it was after April of 1999. Oh, yes. It was after that. Sorry. Let's see. And the record at page 402, he started a small business in Kazakhstan with the proceeds of a store that he now claims he had. He sold, he was buying energy from large suppliers and selling this energy to retail. But eventually his office was set on fire. Let me ask you one question with regards to, go ahead. Do you want to finish up? I just want to just address briefly the trip back and forth and decide to do something. You have to have a question for you about the military open. In December of, he was asked about this trip on cross-examination. Why did you return back to Russia in December of 2002? And he said, I returned to Russia because I did not know yet know my life was in danger. Then he was confronted with the fact that he testified on direct examination that the day before he left in December of 2002, that he was threatened by Colonel Kolokov, who promised that they would find him. And he later admitted on cross that in fact, in December of 2002, his life was in danger. As a matter of fact, during that confrontation of December of 2002, when he testified, I left the next day, he was confronted Colonel Kolokov, gave him the name and the phone number and address of his family in the United States. And said, we can find you anywhere. And yet still, he returned to Russia after that confrontation. So that is very, very telling. And then again, there is the inconsistency with regard to his meeting, Mr. Saleh, who is the sort of the source of all of his problems. I think you had another question

. Let's see. And the record at page 402, he started a small business in Kazakhstan with the proceeds of a store that he now claims he had. He sold, he was buying energy from large suppliers and selling this energy to retail. But eventually his office was set on fire. Let me ask you one question with regards to, go ahead. Do you want to finish up? I just want to just address briefly the trip back and forth and decide to do something. You have to have a question for you about the military open. In December of, he was asked about this trip on cross-examination. Why did you return back to Russia in December of 2002? And he said, I returned to Russia because I did not know yet know my life was in danger. Then he was confronted with the fact that he testified on direct examination that the day before he left in December of 2002, that he was threatened by Colonel Kolokov, who promised that they would find him. And he later admitted on cross that in fact, in December of 2002, his life was in danger. As a matter of fact, during that confrontation of December of 2002, when he testified, I left the next day, he was confronted Colonel Kolokov, gave him the name and the phone number and address of his family in the United States. And said, we can find you anywhere. And yet still, he returned to Russia after that confrontation. So that is very, very telling. And then again, there is the inconsistency with regard to his meeting, Mr. Saleh, who is the sort of the source of all of his problems. I think you had another question. Yeah, a question about the, on the motion to reopen, the BIA said that you do not follow in connection with cooperation, the Opti-Lifes standards. They've been overruled by Section 208B1B2 of the Immigration Act. But we have said after that in Chukwu, that's just not the case. Absolute three-part tests continues. Isn't that correct? Your Honor, we're not taking the position that, I think this Court has made it clear that they believe Abdelay survives the Real ID Act. Correct. If I could just clarify one thing about what the board was saying, I think. First, I would point out that the board actually cited Abdelay in its first decision on the merits. And with respect to Abdelay applying with regard to the board's decision on the motion to reopen, it actually referenced 8 USC 1158B1B2 to the lies. This is the sustaining burden section of the statute. And it said that, you know, that that, that is a new provision found in the Real ID Act. And I think if you go back to originally Abdelay and also this Court's decisions in Ture and Chukwu and Sandy, that this Court said that it basically couldn't apply its review standard under 8 USC 1252B4D, which is whether or not one can. My question is, I mean, I'm not sure this helps, it will help you much, but doesn't this call for just a remand for the BIA to reconsider what the motion to reopen? It looks like what happens is you should bring the evidence in and you should assess it. And then make a determination if you follow the three-part test in Abdelay. And they would even allow the evidence to come in. Well, I think, Your Honor, as I said in my brief, even if this Court were to find, you know, to find that the board aired in making that statement with regard to Abdelay, it is harmless error because Abdelay was followed in this case. That's what I was going to ask you. It looked strange to me that the ID said Abdelay doesn't apply, but then it appeared to apply the Abdelay factor

. Yeah, a question about the, on the motion to reopen, the BIA said that you do not follow in connection with cooperation, the Opti-Lifes standards. They've been overruled by Section 208B1B2 of the Immigration Act. But we have said after that in Chukwu, that's just not the case. Absolute three-part tests continues. Isn't that correct? Your Honor, we're not taking the position that, I think this Court has made it clear that they believe Abdelay survives the Real ID Act. Correct. If I could just clarify one thing about what the board was saying, I think. First, I would point out that the board actually cited Abdelay in its first decision on the merits. And with respect to Abdelay applying with regard to the board's decision on the motion to reopen, it actually referenced 8 USC 1158B1B2 to the lies. This is the sustaining burden section of the statute. And it said that, you know, that that, that is a new provision found in the Real ID Act. And I think if you go back to originally Abdelay and also this Court's decisions in Ture and Chukwu and Sandy, that this Court said that it basically couldn't apply its review standard under 8 USC 1252B4D, which is whether or not one can. My question is, I mean, I'm not sure this helps, it will help you much, but doesn't this call for just a remand for the BIA to reconsider what the motion to reopen? It looks like what happens is you should bring the evidence in and you should assess it. And then make a determination if you follow the three-part test in Abdelay. And they would even allow the evidence to come in. Well, I think, Your Honor, as I said in my brief, even if this Court were to find, you know, to find that the board aired in making that statement with regard to Abdelay, it is harmless error because Abdelay was followed in this case. That's what I was going to ask you. It looked strange to me that the ID said Abdelay doesn't apply, but then it appeared to apply the Abdelay factor. They absolutely did. And again, why don't you demonstrate for us why that's actually the case? Well, I'd be happy to. Does I think we all agree? It was a misstatement regarding Abdelay. Well, for example, I mean, there was a tremendous amount of notice, for example, with regard to the documents that he was requested to supply. He was asked to supply really any kind of corroboration of any of the specifics of his claim. All of it was lacking. If they were most of reopened, they would have identified it. They would have admitted the letter from his father. And then they would have addressed his explanation for the lack of the records. They didn't do that. I'm not sure that- I'm not sure that- I'm not sure it's going to help him a heck of a lot. But I'm not sure, Judge, that Abdelay is applying in the motion to reopen context so much as it's a question of whether or not Abdelay was applied in the beginning. And Abdelay was quite clearly applied- Well, then why would they in the motion to reopen say that Abdelay doesn't apply? Because Mr. Bolotov was arguing that Mr. D. Ramundo should have made an argument to the board, and he didn't, and therefore the failure- his alleged failure to apply Abdelay was not exhausted. And Bolotov felt- Abdelay even applied when the primary reason that they- that I, his petition was credibility. That's exactly right

. They absolutely did. And again, why don't you demonstrate for us why that's actually the case? Well, I'd be happy to. Does I think we all agree? It was a misstatement regarding Abdelay. Well, for example, I mean, there was a tremendous amount of notice, for example, with regard to the documents that he was requested to supply. He was asked to supply really any kind of corroboration of any of the specifics of his claim. All of it was lacking. If they were most of reopened, they would have identified it. They would have admitted the letter from his father. And then they would have addressed his explanation for the lack of the records. They didn't do that. I'm not sure that- I'm not sure that- I'm not sure it's going to help him a heck of a lot. But I'm not sure, Judge, that Abdelay is applying in the motion to reopen context so much as it's a question of whether or not Abdelay was applied in the beginning. And Abdelay was quite clearly applied- Well, then why would they in the motion to reopen say that Abdelay doesn't apply? Because Mr. Bolotov was arguing that Mr. D. Ramundo should have made an argument to the board, and he didn't, and therefore the failure- his alleged failure to apply Abdelay was not exhausted. And Bolotov felt- Abdelay even applied when the primary reason that they- that I, his petition was credibility. That's exactly right. You're right. Your Honor, you don't get to- You do not get to cooperate. That's a backup issue. That's why I said I'm not sure it's going to help him a whole lot. I don't think you get to corroborate so that he's not credible. Right. But I think again, he was asked for every kind of conceivable corroborative evidence. He was asked for a lease with Mr. Salay. He was asked for police reports to backup his problems with his gangs in the early years. He was asked for medical records. He was asked for the letter from his father. He was asked for a letter from his attorney. And Judge specifically said- I mean, I'm sorry, he was asked for a letter from his attorney. And Bolotov said, all I didn't think that was necessary. He was asked for bank documents to establish the loan that the Kazakh government apparently set up for him. So again, as in, as these courtists said, this isn't a situation where someone is found credible, as is the point that Judge Cohen is going to, where he was found credible, and that he presented corroborative evidence, but somehow the immigration judge wanted more. He presented no corroboration of his injuries, of his mistreatment, of really anything that was critical to his claim

. You're right. Your Honor, you don't get to- You do not get to cooperate. That's a backup issue. That's why I said I'm not sure it's going to help him a whole lot. I don't think you get to corroborate so that he's not credible. Right. But I think again, he was asked for every kind of conceivable corroborative evidence. He was asked for a lease with Mr. Salay. He was asked for police reports to backup his problems with his gangs in the early years. He was asked for medical records. He was asked for the letter from his father. He was asked for a letter from his attorney. And Judge specifically said- I mean, I'm sorry, he was asked for a letter from his attorney. And Bolotov said, all I didn't think that was necessary. He was asked for bank documents to establish the loan that the Kazakh government apparently set up for him. So again, as in, as these courtists said, this isn't a situation where someone is found credible, as is the point that Judge Cohen is going to, where he was found credible, and that he presented corroborative evidence, but somehow the immigration judge wanted more. He presented no corroboration of his injuries, of his mistreatment, of really anything that was critical to his claim. I don't think we have any further questions. Any further? Thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. Spivek. You're on just in conclusion to- I mean, let me just ask one thing. Mr. Tire mentioned, for example, when Mr. Bolotov was in prison that he poorly was stabbed at one point. Does any scar shown to the IJ of a stab wound on the chest? I mean, there would be a scar. Not to my knowledge, Robert. That happened back in 1994. That was not when he was in prison. That was earlier. It really makes it really hard from an opposition to try to second guess here then. I mean, there's a significant test of he made, and it doesn't look as if you're even close to it. Well, you're on it. Again, the issue of the trips I want to go back to again, this is a man who had millions of dollars invested in shopping

. I don't think we have any further questions. Any further? Thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. Spivek. You're on just in conclusion to- I mean, let me just ask one thing. Mr. Tire mentioned, for example, when Mr. Bolotov was in prison that he poorly was stabbed at one point. Does any scar shown to the IJ of a stab wound on the chest? I mean, there would be a scar. Not to my knowledge, Robert. That happened back in 1994. That was not when he was in prison. That was earlier. It really makes it really hard from an opposition to try to second guess here then. I mean, there's a significant test of he made, and it doesn't look as if you're even close to it. Well, you're on it. Again, the issue of the trips I want to go back to again, this is a man who had millions of dollars invested in shopping. But we're talking about just among other trips. The fact that he stayed in Kazakhstan for eight months before he left in December of 1999 doesn't help him. The trips back, the setting up the new business, but little things like the cooperation of a stab wound. If that's not there, how do you expect us to be able to have anything to say about whether there should be any kind of or granting of a petition for review? Because you're asking about something that happened 16 years before the hearing. He didn't say that it was a deep stab wound and he went to the hospital. When was the hearing? Here it was in 2010. We're talking about a stab wound that alleged to occur in 1994. 98. 94? 94. You still have scar. You still have scar. Not necessarily. It depends on superficialists. Anyway, it wasn't presented. But you're making a factual determination at this point. The point is the current version. At this point, the burden, as it was before the, with holding of removal because you were too late for asylum, or cat, the burden's on Mr. Bullittop

. But we're talking about just among other trips. The fact that he stayed in Kazakhstan for eight months before he left in December of 1999 doesn't help him. The trips back, the setting up the new business, but little things like the cooperation of a stab wound. If that's not there, how do you expect us to be able to have anything to say about whether there should be any kind of or granting of a petition for review? Because you're asking about something that happened 16 years before the hearing. He didn't say that it was a deep stab wound and he went to the hospital. When was the hearing? Here it was in 2010. We're talking about a stab wound that alleged to occur in 1994. 98. 94? 94. You still have scar. You still have scar. Not necessarily. It depends on superficialists. Anyway, it wasn't presented. But you're making a factual determination at this point. The point is the current version. At this point, the burden, as it was before the, with holding of removal because you were too late for asylum, or cat, the burden's on Mr. Bullittop. But again, he's met that burden by showing that there's a likelihood of future torture in Russia. Conditions of life threatening. He was already threatened there. You have a 33 single space page, IJ opinion is probably the most comprehensive one I've ever read. And that goes through everything line by line. But as you pointed out, it's cast over the shadow of this federal conviction, making the assumption that he must be lying about everything else. And then we go through, point by point, and say that some of these inconsistencies don't exist. And the only one that could be pinned on is where he said four times that he met Sela in 1998. And he said once that he met him in 1997. I don't see how that is even a basis for a real idea. That's sort of inherent in credibility, though, isn't it? You know, witness takes to stand in a jury trial. And the witness testifies to 10 things and the jury doesn't believe the witness on the number one most important thing. Sometimes the jury assumes or determines that all of the other nine are also lies. And that could be completely wrong. But is that not the function of the fact finder? Is not the function of the fact finder when she's supposed to independently judge based on the testimony in the documents presented as to whether he has a past persecution or well-founded fear of persecution. And here she didn't do that. She cast everything based on the conviction. And certainly, at least that

. But again, he's met that burden by showing that there's a likelihood of future torture in Russia. Conditions of life threatening. He was already threatened there. You have a 33 single space page, IJ opinion is probably the most comprehensive one I've ever read. And that goes through everything line by line. But as you pointed out, it's cast over the shadow of this federal conviction, making the assumption that he must be lying about everything else. And then we go through, point by point, and say that some of these inconsistencies don't exist. And the only one that could be pinned on is where he said four times that he met Sela in 1998. And he said once that he met him in 1997. I don't see how that is even a basis for a real idea. That's sort of inherent in credibility, though, isn't it? You know, witness takes to stand in a jury trial. And the witness testifies to 10 things and the jury doesn't believe the witness on the number one most important thing. Sometimes the jury assumes or determines that all of the other nine are also lies. And that could be completely wrong. But is that not the function of the fact finder? Is not the function of the fact finder when she's supposed to independently judge based on the testimony in the documents presented as to whether he has a past persecution or well-founded fear of persecution. And here she didn't do that. She cast everything based on the conviction. And certainly, at least that. Well, when you say he's demonstrated, you've put the rabbit in the hat, because it's only demonstrated if all those things are true and she's finding that they're not true. And she can't know one way or the other. She wasn't there. She can only look at the witness, listen to the witness, try inferences. But she didn't make any. It's one of those classic trial judgment calls, isn't it? No, because there's no demeanor finding. There's no finding that his testimony is internally inconsistent. As a matter of fact, it's internally consistent. And it's consistent with what documentation he was able to produce. What's bothering her here is that you were convicted of lying. Okay, then he admits that he is lying. Okay, he doesn't even, he never even had an opportunity to recant or anything, because, which normally happens in an immigration proceeding, because they were intent on arresting him for the interpol war. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you to both, Councillor for well-presented.

The matter under advisement. And call our second case this morning. Bullittov, the attorney general. Numbers 11-30-48, and 11-43-57. Mr. Spivec and Ms. Tyler. I'm sorry, go ahead ahead. Good morning, Ron. My name is Lawrence Spivec. I represent the petition in the panel. Bullittov, I'd like to respectfully request to reserve a three minutes for you. That's fine. Go right ahead. Good morning, Ron. Let me just ask one question here. When, or start off with some questions. When was Mr. Bullittov in prisoned in the late 90s? Was it 98, 99, or when? It was both, Ron. It was from approximately November, 1998 through April, 1999. So he was there about five, six months? Yes, Ron. Because so if the things were so bad, I counted up starting in June of 99. No, December of 1999, excuse me. There's about eight or nine times. He goes back and forth between the United States and either Russia or Kazakhstan. Is that correct? Yes, Ron. So how does, it's counterintuitive that there is a significant issue if he's going to continue going back and forth, back and forth many times? Well, no, you're on it again. First of all, there was only one return trip to Kazakhstan after that for the purpose of selling what remained and trying to obtain Russian citizenship. He moved to Russia in 2000. He testified in the proceeding that he had no contact with any gang members on behalf of the corrupt officials or any indication in Russia that he would have any problems with them until December 2002. After that encounter, he only left and returned once. There was a final threat in May 2003, a very serious threat that he would be killed and then he never returned at all. And during that time, of course, he had no knowledge that they were hatching this entire plan to pin a contract murder on him, which events transpired long after he was gone. And ironically, all these events start only after the Kazakh officials and the officials who were working with them in the Russian government discovered this. And it's significant that the Interpol charges did not come to his knowledge until after he was placed in federal custody. He had no knowledge of this, had he known of this. He probably would have applied for a sinal, much sooner, knowing that the Kazakh government had the ability to reach across the ocean to try and find them. Because first of all, as I mentioned earlier, they never did anything to try and find them for two and a half years in Russia. But when he would bat these number of times, how many times of those eight or nine subsequent through his detention in 98, 99 did he go back to Kazakhstan? I believe he only went once in the end of 99 after the after's release of detention. Has he been successful in getting Russian citizenship? Yes, he obtained in 2000. And so that's why the government is trying to remove him to Russia and not to Kazakhstan. Okay. So what sounds like in Russia, which he's gone back to many times, does, what does he fear going back to Russia as opposed to Kazakhstan now? Well, he fears, he fears, first of all, that he would be persecuted on account of his nationality, his Jewish nationality, by the same group of corrupt officials. They couldn't confiscate, that successfully confiscated his businesses in Kazakhstan. One of whom is this Colonel Kalikov, who brought the Yermalayevs in to threaten him in Russia in 2002 and again in 2003. Also, what's significant, even if you look at the verdict that's come from Kazakhstan, that somehow, these Yermalayev people were able to get to Russian police to cross over into Kazakhstan to prosecute the people who were supposedly actually carried out the contract. This is a Yermalayev, who has no governmental connections, whatsoever, and somehow seems to have this incredible amount of influence that he can get Russian police to cross the border without any inter-country cooperation agreement to go prosecute a crime, investigate a crime in Kazakhstan. So, yes. Yeah, I was just saying, basically, whatever was going on in Kazakhstan and Russia, basically the IJ primarily, although he had other alternative thoughts, primarily ruled against your client because he felt on the grounds of credibility. Yes. And we're in a situation on appeal here where, unless we can decide that a reasonable fact-hunter would be compelled to conclude the client was credible, the decision by the fact that the fact-hunter IJ has to stand, what in the record would compel an appeal court to say that this fact-finding that he was incredible, and that's the primary reason they ruled against your client? Why are we compelled to find that to be in error? Well, first of all, because most of the alleged inconsistencies by a side of the IJ don't even exist. Well, primarily the conviction that wasn't revealed, that's one of the things about the main thing he relied on. That's correct. And that was whether it was a proper conviction or not, it was a conviction, and I think the IJ was very influenced by that as anyone would be, that whether it was a proper conviction or political conviction or whatever, it wasn't revealed. However, the political nature of the prosecution could not have been brought up in the federal trial. The issue in the federal trial, at least for purposes of the charging document, is, did you answer the question incorrectly on the I-485? And he agrees, yes, I answered the question incorrectly on the I-485, but it wasn't made clear to him that he had the opportunity to challenge, and in the scope of the federal charge, there really isn't any way to challenge the illegality of the arrests in Kazakhstan itself. Because then how could we or should we, in what way could we say that the fact-finding by the IJ was we're compelled, not that we would have gone along with your position, I say, that's a reasonable position, I'll go that way. But we have to go beyond that, say, not only is it reasonable, but we're compelled to say that his fact-finding in determining that your client is not credible, is something we're compelled to reverse. Based on the record before us. Right, because as I pointed out in my brief, a lot of the alleged inconsistencies between the application or within the testimony don't exist, they say, for example, he said he only suffered bruises, but he said I was beaten badly, very clearly. But the point is, let's just take one of those on that. He said he was beaten so badly that he thought he had a possible fractured skull, and there's no corroboration, but you don't really have to go to medical authorities in Kazakhstan to get the corroboration, for example, if you had a fractured skull, you could merely have an x-ray taken here, unless it's a, he was a young person which he wasn't, and you had a hairline displaced fracture, it's gonna show up. But again, he's saying he thought he had a fractured skull, there's no, he's not alleging through out the continuation of the case. But what did he have, what evidence did he have from doctors over here that there were, that showed that there was, at some point in time, this person had been abused in a way that sounds like he had some, from the descriptions, some primitive injuries. Well, you're on again, he was in detention from day one, and to the present day that he was in the federal custody, it's extremely difficult to get a doctor, like when I have a client on the outside to go to physicians' committee for human rights or someone else, it's extremely difficult to get someone into a detention facility for an examination. What they're not allowed in? It's difficult to set it up, unless the only way that I've ever been successful is when the US Public Health Services and Evidence from their own treatment of the patient, while he's in detention. You can't file a motion or petition to have your doctor go in and examine the client? I'm not knowledgeable of that, so I just know that it wasn't done, and I know that I've had difficulty in that particular facility in getting anyone into examine anybody at the Elizabeth detention center. This seems to relate somewhat to the IJs challenging of your client about the lack of corroboration, and his answer was sort of like, well, why would I? Did he say why at one point? He said why with regard to why would you need my father's letter, but not the, he showed them the scar on his nose in the hearing. This is where it is. He just couldn't prove that the origin of it, because he's not a medical expert. On the origin's critical, though, right? Because if it happened in a bar fight or something, that doesn't help your claim, but if it was the authority beating him up, it does help your claim. Right, but again. So the fact of a broken nose or an injured nose isn't probative one way or the other. You have to tie it to the cause, right? That's part of it. Of course, the existence of the injury itself is there, and it hasn't been disputed by the government because trial counsel saw it. However, it again, it is very hard to do, and it's an expedited proceeding, and he did not have the, he did not have any counsel until April 2010, and the hearing was only a few months like that. But the letter from the father wouldn't have been that much to expect, would it? Except that he tried to show it to the IJ, and it turns out that Mr. D. Romando had it in his file, the entire time, but it was attached to another of the document, and that's why it wasn't produced. It wasn't he admitted, it was in his file. So there was a letter from the father? Absolutely, it was a letter from the father. And I produced it on the motion to reopen. In addition to which the prior IJ Judge Reichenberg said, you can have anyone testify telephonically over the fall from overseas, and the father stated in his letter, in one of his later letters, that he was ready to testify, but no one called him. Because it was a very long hearing, and it went to the end of the day, and perhaps that's why the IJ, perhaps that's why it wasn't presented, but he was available. And the letter, most compellingly, in Mr. D. Romando's response, he says, I have the letter, but it was attached to another 40-page document. And honestly, it appears that Mr. D. Romando just didn't bother to look at the 40-page document and see that the father's letter was attached to. Incidentally, do we have jurisdiction for the review of the BIA's initial decision, and it challenged the agency's chain circumstance to be termination? Do we have jurisdiction even to hear that claim? On the existing precedent, it would certainly appear not. I'm arguing that the precedent is. Okay, you'll be fine. That's, that's, that's, I can see you. Okay. Other than that, parking back to Judge Ambrose Question You, he was actually going back and claiming he would mistreat him back to the early 1990s. The late 1990s problem. I thought it was early. He also said that he had threats when he bought the grocery chain. Yes, I thought it was back to the early 1990s. Right, right. Yeah, okay. And yet, during that period of time, Judge Ambrose, you, I just, I just, I just, I just, I just, I just, he went back and forth any number of times. It doesn't make sense that if they were mistreating him, not far back to the early 1990s, he would have been going, shuttling back and forth. What, does that, they, I mean, is that something that the IJ could have taken into consideration? I believe that she just counted the number of trips and made a decision based on that. But more importantly, he sent his whole family to the United States in 1995. They never came back. Okay. He thought that he, and if you read a testimony, he thought that he could work it out by working with groups like the Yermalayevs and so on to counteract the corrupt officials and other groups. And those other groups basically just took his money. And didn't do anything. But he, you know, unfortunately, that appears to be a way of life for a minority businessman in Kazakhstan. We would be a poor ad here, but this is what he had to do in order to keep his business going. And the trips were necessary to pursue his business. And to, and you know, he had everything there. It didn't make, it would be extremely difficult for him to have lost at that time before his arrest. He had all these businesses and he was hoping to cut it, you know, to pacify the government officials who want to take over the businesses and work some of the range and where they would stop bothering it. And it really wasn't until this arrest, this unjustified arrest occurred that he realized that there's no way of pacifying anymore. I need to get out and I need to get Russian citizenship. So if he's removed now, just to refresh what we talked about a few minutes ago, he'll be removed to Russia. Will there be an attempt from Kazakhstan to have him removed from Russia to Kazakhstan? Yes, but it may not be immediate as we, aside of the side and fellow example, a person who Kazakhstan wanted stayed for eight months in a Russian prison before he was finally extradited. There's a good chance that Mr. Bullittov could be physically eliminated in a Russian prison where conditions are admittedly life-threatening before he ever gets to Kazakhstan. So just because there's a theoretical agreement, doesn't mean he's ever going to get to Kazakhstan. Thank you. We'll hear from Mr. Pistano. Good morning, Your Honors. May it please the court. My name is Julia Tyler, and I represent the Attorney General of the United States in this immigration case. I have two issues. One on the merits and one on the motion to reopen. On the merits, the IJ title here did, you know, a very comprehensive job. But when it came to adverse credibility, she said that the primary reason that she finds adverse credibility is because he had lied before, but what he did by pleading guilty was he actually told the truth that he had lied when he first came here. So in effect, she's double-dipping. She's saying, because he told the truth about that he once upon a time lied, therefore he has to be found adversely credible. That doesn't really seem to, and there's no cases that she cited that would allow you to do that. I'd be happy to address that, Your Honor. First, I don't think that the immigration judge relied primarily on... That was the first thing on page 21. It is the first thing she mentions, and I think she sets the groundwork. She says that the provision of false information in order to receive an immigration benefit discredits his current testimony and causes it to be viewed cautiously. Now, also, it's important to remember the chronology of these events. He filed his adjustment application in January of 2004, and then many years later, took many years for the interview to take place. And during this time, Department of Homeland Security was communicating and trying to ascertain whether or not MECLA Limited had actually had a counterpart in Kazakhstan. And it was through that investigation that they ascertained from the Kazakh government that it was a fraudulent company that the documents that had been submitted to create MECLA were fraudulent. And the Kazakh government also reported that he had been arrested for smuggling and forgery in April of 1998, and held there until, I'm sorry, November of 1998, and held there until April of 1999. Then Bullitov went to and is at his adjustment interview. He was asked a second time whether or not everything that he stated in his I-45 application was correct, and he said it was. It was at that time that he was charged with his misrepresentation, at which point he did plead guilty. And he testified in his removal hearing that he pled guilty because he was guilty. I understand that they are now, that he is now making a technical hard. There he's now telling the truth. I pled guilty because I was guilty. Well, originally on direct examination, Judge Ambroke, he had all kinds of excuses for why he pled guilty. And he did not take ownership of his plea. He said that he had been told that his family was going to be deported. He said that he didn't think it was illegal arrest. And then on cross examination, those areas were pursued. And he was asked, did you raise this issue that you did not believe you were arrested in Kazakhstan was a legal arrest? Did you raise that with the judge? No, I didn't raise that with the judge. And he was eventually forced to admit, I pled guilty because I was guilty. And I also would like to comment that this argument from Petitioner's counsel that this is some sort of, you know, this is some sort of a technical violation. When you say in a hearing that you pled guilty because you're guilty, he pled guilty to knowingly and intentionally providing fraudulent information on his adjustment application. And I think the immigration judge, although it was not her sole basis for fighting him at first, the creditable, it wasn't important. No, but the other items were like, he was a year or two off here. He was a year or two off there. They really pale. And she puts this one front and center. Could I, Judge Amber, could I address the issues of the trips back and forth? Because I think that you could go ahead. Really, really important area. I want to just get back very quickly here. It's important to remember, in 1990, I think one of you pointed out, he's been having trouble with these gangs since 1992 or 1993. He said that his business had been destroyed, because Windows have been blown out, and his offices have been destroyed. He claimed that he'd been stabbed in the chest as early as 1992 or 1993. He says his family to the United States in 1995, because he calls it a savage country, and they will not be safe there. He was arrested and detained in November of 1998, and he doesn't get released until April of 1999. He was told by these individuals, while he was in prison, allegedly, that they'll find him anywhere. They will find him on the moon. And by the way, he was also told, and this is in the record at pages 376, to 378. He was also told by Colonel Nugiriliyab about the killings of Hussein Salay. He was told in prison, we will hang these killings on you. We can do that, because he claims that Nugiriliyab told him, it's our, we were the ones who tell who gets in and who gets out of cause of prison. So the notion that he had a new and unique reason to seek asylum in the United States, because the Interpol warrant just just not stand up against the facts. He was told in prison. Let me get quickly back to the trips back and forth. He waited eight months after he was released from the cause of prison in April of 1999. He even come to the United States. He stayed one month and he returned. He returned and despite threats of harm and promises of ongoing punishment, if he did not accede to their demands. He claimed he went back. Now, when you left in December of 1990, did you leave from cause of stands? The United States are from Russia. He left from Kazakhstan and he returned to Kazakhstan. And when he was asked about this, he testified that he needed to go back so he could sell some property that he had in Kazakhstan. But that doesn't make any sense because his father claims that after he got out of prison, he had nothing. He was laid bare. He had nothing but the shirt on his back. He testified on direct examination that after he was released from prison in April of 1999, he had nothing. He had no property. The banks had sold everything he owned. And yet all of a sudden, he's got to go back and sell things. He starts a new business in Kazakhstan after he was released from prison. I don't know how someone does that. Let me have no ask. Did you get Kazakhstan? I'm sorry? In Kazakhstan. He started a new business in Kazakhstan selling energy. And let me quickly address also, is I think this is just as important. The trip back. When did that new business start? Let's see. Roughly. I'm sorry. I don't have it at my fingertips, but he did. But it was after April of 1999. Oh, yes. It was after that. Sorry. Let's see. And the record at page 402, he started a small business in Kazakhstan with the proceeds of a store that he now claims he had. He sold, he was buying energy from large suppliers and selling this energy to retail. But eventually his office was set on fire. Let me ask you one question with regards to, go ahead. Do you want to finish up? I just want to just address briefly the trip back and forth and decide to do something. You have to have a question for you about the military open. In December of, he was asked about this trip on cross-examination. Why did you return back to Russia in December of 2002? And he said, I returned to Russia because I did not know yet know my life was in danger. Then he was confronted with the fact that he testified on direct examination that the day before he left in December of 2002, that he was threatened by Colonel Kolokov, who promised that they would find him. And he later admitted on cross that in fact, in December of 2002, his life was in danger. As a matter of fact, during that confrontation of December of 2002, when he testified, I left the next day, he was confronted Colonel Kolokov, gave him the name and the phone number and address of his family in the United States. And said, we can find you anywhere. And yet still, he returned to Russia after that confrontation. So that is very, very telling. And then again, there is the inconsistency with regard to his meeting, Mr. Saleh, who is the sort of the source of all of his problems. I think you had another question. Yeah, a question about the, on the motion to reopen, the BIA said that you do not follow in connection with cooperation, the Opti-Lifes standards. They've been overruled by Section 208B1B2 of the Immigration Act. But we have said after that in Chukwu, that's just not the case. Absolute three-part tests continues. Isn't that correct? Your Honor, we're not taking the position that, I think this Court has made it clear that they believe Abdelay survives the Real ID Act. Correct. If I could just clarify one thing about what the board was saying, I think. First, I would point out that the board actually cited Abdelay in its first decision on the merits. And with respect to Abdelay applying with regard to the board's decision on the motion to reopen, it actually referenced 8 USC 1158B1B2 to the lies. This is the sustaining burden section of the statute. And it said that, you know, that that, that is a new provision found in the Real ID Act. And I think if you go back to originally Abdelay and also this Court's decisions in Ture and Chukwu and Sandy, that this Court said that it basically couldn't apply its review standard under 8 USC 1252B4D, which is whether or not one can. My question is, I mean, I'm not sure this helps, it will help you much, but doesn't this call for just a remand for the BIA to reconsider what the motion to reopen? It looks like what happens is you should bring the evidence in and you should assess it. And then make a determination if you follow the three-part test in Abdelay. And they would even allow the evidence to come in. Well, I think, Your Honor, as I said in my brief, even if this Court were to find, you know, to find that the board aired in making that statement with regard to Abdelay, it is harmless error because Abdelay was followed in this case. That's what I was going to ask you. It looked strange to me that the ID said Abdelay doesn't apply, but then it appeared to apply the Abdelay factor. They absolutely did. And again, why don't you demonstrate for us why that's actually the case? Well, I'd be happy to. Does I think we all agree? It was a misstatement regarding Abdelay. Well, for example, I mean, there was a tremendous amount of notice, for example, with regard to the documents that he was requested to supply. He was asked to supply really any kind of corroboration of any of the specifics of his claim. All of it was lacking. If they were most of reopened, they would have identified it. They would have admitted the letter from his father. And then they would have addressed his explanation for the lack of the records. They didn't do that. I'm not sure that- I'm not sure that- I'm not sure it's going to help him a heck of a lot. But I'm not sure, Judge, that Abdelay is applying in the motion to reopen context so much as it's a question of whether or not Abdelay was applied in the beginning. And Abdelay was quite clearly applied- Well, then why would they in the motion to reopen say that Abdelay doesn't apply? Because Mr. Bolotov was arguing that Mr. D. Ramundo should have made an argument to the board, and he didn't, and therefore the failure- his alleged failure to apply Abdelay was not exhausted. And Bolotov felt- Abdelay even applied when the primary reason that they- that I, his petition was credibility. That's exactly right. You're right. Your Honor, you don't get to- You do not get to cooperate. That's a backup issue. That's why I said I'm not sure it's going to help him a whole lot. I don't think you get to corroborate so that he's not credible. Right. But I think again, he was asked for every kind of conceivable corroborative evidence. He was asked for a lease with Mr. Salay. He was asked for police reports to backup his problems with his gangs in the early years. He was asked for medical records. He was asked for the letter from his father. He was asked for a letter from his attorney. And Judge specifically said- I mean, I'm sorry, he was asked for a letter from his attorney. And Bolotov said, all I didn't think that was necessary. He was asked for bank documents to establish the loan that the Kazakh government apparently set up for him. So again, as in, as these courtists said, this isn't a situation where someone is found credible, as is the point that Judge Cohen is going to, where he was found credible, and that he presented corroborative evidence, but somehow the immigration judge wanted more. He presented no corroboration of his injuries, of his mistreatment, of really anything that was critical to his claim. I don't think we have any further questions. Any further? Thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. Spivek. You're on just in conclusion to- I mean, let me just ask one thing. Mr. Tire mentioned, for example, when Mr. Bolotov was in prison that he poorly was stabbed at one point. Does any scar shown to the IJ of a stab wound on the chest? I mean, there would be a scar. Not to my knowledge, Robert. That happened back in 1994. That was not when he was in prison. That was earlier. It really makes it really hard from an opposition to try to second guess here then. I mean, there's a significant test of he made, and it doesn't look as if you're even close to it. Well, you're on it. Again, the issue of the trips I want to go back to again, this is a man who had millions of dollars invested in shopping. But we're talking about just among other trips. The fact that he stayed in Kazakhstan for eight months before he left in December of 1999 doesn't help him. The trips back, the setting up the new business, but little things like the cooperation of a stab wound. If that's not there, how do you expect us to be able to have anything to say about whether there should be any kind of or granting of a petition for review? Because you're asking about something that happened 16 years before the hearing. He didn't say that it was a deep stab wound and he went to the hospital. When was the hearing? Here it was in 2010. We're talking about a stab wound that alleged to occur in 1994. 98. 94? 94. You still have scar. You still have scar. Not necessarily. It depends on superficialists. Anyway, it wasn't presented. But you're making a factual determination at this point. The point is the current version. At this point, the burden, as it was before the, with holding of removal because you were too late for asylum, or cat, the burden's on Mr. Bullittop. But again, he's met that burden by showing that there's a likelihood of future torture in Russia. Conditions of life threatening. He was already threatened there. You have a 33 single space page, IJ opinion is probably the most comprehensive one I've ever read. And that goes through everything line by line. But as you pointed out, it's cast over the shadow of this federal conviction, making the assumption that he must be lying about everything else. And then we go through, point by point, and say that some of these inconsistencies don't exist. And the only one that could be pinned on is where he said four times that he met Sela in 1998. And he said once that he met him in 1997. I don't see how that is even a basis for a real idea. That's sort of inherent in credibility, though, isn't it? You know, witness takes to stand in a jury trial. And the witness testifies to 10 things and the jury doesn't believe the witness on the number one most important thing. Sometimes the jury assumes or determines that all of the other nine are also lies. And that could be completely wrong. But is that not the function of the fact finder? Is not the function of the fact finder when she's supposed to independently judge based on the testimony in the documents presented as to whether he has a past persecution or well-founded fear of persecution. And here she didn't do that. She cast everything based on the conviction. And certainly, at least that. Well, when you say he's demonstrated, you've put the rabbit in the hat, because it's only demonstrated if all those things are true and she's finding that they're not true. And she can't know one way or the other. She wasn't there. She can only look at the witness, listen to the witness, try inferences. But she didn't make any. It's one of those classic trial judgment calls, isn't it? No, because there's no demeanor finding. There's no finding that his testimony is internally inconsistent. As a matter of fact, it's internally consistent. And it's consistent with what documentation he was able to produce. What's bothering her here is that you were convicted of lying. Okay, then he admits that he is lying. Okay, he doesn't even, he never even had an opportunity to recant or anything, because, which normally happens in an immigration proceeding, because they were intent on arresting him for the interpol war. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you to both, Councillor for well-presented