inconsistency is the case or substantial material which would lead to the finding of credibility and i believe that the incredible by the way the invasion judge here's here's what bothers me most of us here in the case your client putting forward on the credibility question we have a determination by the federal government me from the hospital is fraudulent and in combination of that we have testimony from your client that the hospital that he went to this hospital was a half a mile from the house yet we have evidence from the government hospital as on the other side of the city the city being the capital amount of gas such that it is not going to be half a mile and it's not going to the closest one so how do you know that strikes me unless there's something i don't understand about it as a the situation and he explained to the judge you know help how this happened and how did he get to the hospital and basically that's that's what happened it was in the testimony dispute the conclusion that it's an authentic you're not you're not disputing the conclusion that it's a fraudulent document you're just disputing that your client was responsible for producing a fraudulent document that's correct  this is the day that he claims that he was jumped by fifteen to twenty guys and his testimony does seem to be inconsistent on the question of which direction he was heading on one day that will support his claims well i standing evidence of his hospitalization we can't look at the document because that's a fraudulent document we do have his testimony that he was hospitalized for a month but that's inconsistent with some of the things that are also in the record the date of the episode was july the fifteenth he says you know he writes his return from declaration that he was hospitalized for thirty days but then we get evidence that it was only two weeks then he says i went back well when did you go back you know so not and where was the hospital i mean the hospital story just doesn't seem very convincing we got a fraudulent document we got inconsistent test on about where the hospital is we get inconsistent testimony as to how long he was  hospital he's taken to a hospital that was half a mile from his home he said it was the hospital that was closest to his home and he was then one of the challenge that this hospital that he identified was actually across town he said well yes it's a different place and then he when he was asked why are there hospitals closer to your home he said close to my home there are no good hospitals and then he's given an opportunity again to explain some consistency can offer a possible explanation he said he's asked well he said it was a half mile from where hells but this one's cross town yes well it's it's on a different road unconscious by this beating it was so bad and this the his neighbors essentially saw him and just had to rush him to the nearest place the idea that he was rushed to a hospital across a huge city when he was unconscious and so badly hurt is simply is very significant to his claim that he suffered a very severe injury that would warrant asylum relief the second inconsistency that was noted was the amount of time that he was hospitalized listener submitted both his own statement personal statement that he was admitted for over a month and then also the hospital certificate states he was admitted for a certain period time which which makes up about a month he's given an opportunity to explain this and but if you look at his testimony closely yes he says i was at the hospital for fifteen days and i returned a few days later so this isn't consistent with his current his i his explanation that the treatment actually covered an entire month that he was basically  all the facts in the case however here i mean the can inconsistency is i think were enough to give the immigration judge pos the point where he doesn't really know what to believe in and that kind of circumstance where there's just not any corroboration and again there was there was there was no finding where where there's several as they are here they go to the heart of this this particular incident they claim they collectively can deprive the petitioners claim of the ring of truth and i think that's exactly what's happening in this case thank you both thank you very much thank both sides for their argument how leader first order is now submitted for decision