credibility findings based on stated you know so i was kind of impressed that there was this confusion about whether he staying with his sister or whether he doesn't have a sister but the person is like a sister to him about it but psaki without any there's any way i look at all those things and i think well credibility is always a difficult call and i think the standard to review is that the evidence has things for the the i j a when the government that in fact she was not his sister but that he he treated her as a sister a close family friend don't see why it isn't substantial evidence of dishonesty your honor though the i j stated findings on what she perceived as inconsistency is even though she said it unrealistic were dealing with real life real people with little or no education and petitioner in this situation is he may not be as knowledgeable as to five hundred years of sikh history but it's understandable that he may not know arcane details about five hundred years of sea chemistry but he was sympathetic to the cause and that's what led to his involvement with ai s s f and his subsequent three arrests detention and  ther questioning he may have corrected himself but those are momentarily absence especially with with the question around on on particular dates especially dates on dates concerning  counsel may please the court i'm august for n g with the justice department i'm here on behalf of the acting attorney general of the immigration judges at first credibility finding here should be upheld because it's supported by several articulated specific and cogent reasons that are supported by the record first guilty testimony include some key inaccuracies and inconsistency of the central and accuracy is that he did not know correctly the date when this ali a collie significant because the building was destroyed on the fifteenth anniversary of probably the most kind of horrific political event and speak history which was operation blue star and so as the i j explain this revealed a much larger lack of date anyone who was involved in this organization would know that date because it was it was the destruction of a political party building time to coincide with the destruction of the golden mosque fifteen years earlier it's very it would be i think the j a was correct to say he most likely would have been involved or at least known about these events as a member of the a i s s f this is also consistent with the record material showing that these lines of  and seek asylum claims the state department says they have to ask but it's good to ask about seminal political events in the punjab because many of these crimes are fraudulent i think it's fair for the i j a to inquire and be careful about these sorts of events especially an event as as as critical to seek political history as the operation bluestar in this destruction that coincided with the commemoration of that the second articulated thing is that he didn't know a lot about several other details about about i was vague about very various details of his claim he did not know for example the month of the three hundredth anniversary of the sikh religion celebration event that was involved five million people getting together to celebrate he didn't know the month and which is very which i think the i j a correctly and fairly found it to  how long each arrest lasted but when it when asked whether he even knew this person he said he didn't and the very the letter if when you when it's read were seems to reflect not corroboration but simply repetition of details provided the letter writer from gil and in fact the record shows that harman there had been cited in news reports says submitting false letters in support of asylum applications in the past  the demeanor listed i think i think the demeanor is very tied into some of these other things i've discussed which is that in his direct testimony he gave a pretty cogent clear story but when he on cross examination he seemed to have have real trouble with the dates and events and especially with the events surrounding his second arrest and i think in the record at the a r one eighty three to one eighty eight is where that testimony occurred he really numbers again one eighty three to one word yes i mean i think if it's the court simply use some magic words and that was it i know that might not be enough but here i think the i j a really identified the core of what what she felt was the problem he had had the story straight the first time and the second time it seemed like it's complete confusion about a lot of these did dates and events and and i mean i think that is much i think that's more  inconsistency on dates as well as as the sister issue and the fact that this letter from from his corroborating witness harmand you're saying was completely discredited together are together satisfy the standard this court for a firm is which is identifying mark to articulating specific and cogent reasons for not finding the witness to be credible all this to be looked against the background of the reports in the record which suggests there's very little require a formal at a station from a letter writer in a third world country that the information contained there and is based on their personal knowledge would seem to be unrealistic and on and unreasonable but their court can look at the circumstances explaining how the matter with attain to determine the credit to give to the letter certainly your honor but i believe that petitioner adequately adequately explained that his father got to this gentleman and sole asked him for a letter concerning his involvement with the student federation and his experiences and you know and the letter writer specifically told him come on back i need to check it out with my subordinates if you will came back two times on the third time he was provided a letter their place of employment and then it was forty two petitioner but i believe an act adequate foundation was laid by petitioner there the i g did not question the fact that he was detained or the fact that he was mistreated and petitioner