reviewed the board's decision and as for grounds that they're relying on to support the adverse credibility finding i believe all four or clearly the st one and the discrepancies that's the most important point they weren't in his written declaration but they were in his testimony it used to be years ago petitioners were allowed to expand on their asylum declaration it was pretty regular practice in immigration court omissions are not indicative of deception they're unworthy of a ground to support an adverse credibility by themselves let me ask you about one of the ones i'm we have two sets of issues that the i j a seems to that which seems like a fairly significant event can you can you address why the don't think yeah i was going to say i think one and two are thrown out for what i said i have this one number number for the walkathons i have a number for two but if you  examination that the government lawyer was asking in the government the judge jumped in and continue the questioning but if you read it it says was there any other rally that was organized in two thousand and one after march or april and the applicant says i don't remember i'm sorry now later they refresh his recollection they said what about the walk a thon the question was was there a rally so maybe in his mind he didn't associate the walk of thought as a rally like a protest r so and then if you after the judge questions even more he remembers it so i was assuming that that was what happened it was more like a refreshing of recollection there was no discrepancy or let me ask a question about  is i think excuses for having forgotten yeah i think what the board says if you read it they say well since he didn't submit any evidence that he has a memory problem or medical documentation therefore we don't believe his explanation that simply forgot i don't think that's a requirement and i don't think that excuses the rip the board's record how would you really be evidence how would you like there's a ten year does a ten year difference between the incident and his testimony at least so if that's why he forgot i is my point you don't you don't need medical documentation but let's assume let's assume he said it was ten years between the time i testified and or and the statement testified and i forgot and the board surely somebody is entitle to say oh i don't believe that this was a really important event that you talked about so maybe it didn't occur at all how much how much discussion do they have to give to their reasons for rejecting your your reason other words they basically said we don't believe you i don't yeah i know this case law that says they can't just give a boilerplate we've reviewed the evidence so they have to actually show not only analyze the evidence but show that they had license they're supposed to provide specific and coach  reasons for rejecting it i guess my question is did they do so here no simple answer no i would argue no the immigration character gave him a bit of a lengthy explanation of what he saw heard if you look at the way he asked questions he wasn't trying to pigeonhole the defendant or trick him i do i see that in his questioning at all and he was bothered by his failure to recall his own arrest which clearly was at the heart of his claim was it not yeah but where did the board rely on the failure to arrest and that's that's that's what i was going to ask you about the i j a seems to have done a more thorough job than the board if we were to accept your argument the board could still go back and say well we haven't we last time we didn't look at the other bases for the lack of credibility find you now we're going to look at them and presumably you could make a decision based on that was good enough it's possible but i believe we're entitled to that opportunity so your complaint about the absence of cogent reasons is from the board not the i j a right correct because we have to look at what the board said correct correct our appeal in the board's decision i think i just decision for example the i a talked a lot about the overseas investigation and the board completely didn't even want to have that as part of their support grounds for the credibility decision so what i'm saying is there's a big difference between i just decision and the board's decision and today we're this let's start let's start from the premise that we're only reporter viewing the four incidents that the board cited for the adverse credibility fine on the we know in our brief that there were two considerations that the immigration judge and only found that were not picked up right and so we only we only review what the board the board says we're not looking at the other bases it's pretty clear that we only review the bases that the board relied on is correct i would i would say this i don't want to i don't want to get on this your honor i would say that you don't think you can because unless you can tell me show me some authority but because the law seems pretty clear that we only rely on the basis that the board cites so lot of law a lot of court decisions by circuit decisions that will talk about the board looking at the ideas decision and kind of as a guidepost and examining the reasoning and so they're not there i thought this is a case in which the board expressly said we're not going to rely on the other reasons of credibility we're not going to look at them we think we have enough with these four we're not going to look at the other ones so in this case whatever you can dr of law that says omissions silent statement made by somebody who doesn't speak english and isn't represented you know unless they seem to be done for some advantage really i can't really say this is all care work so to me the centerpiece of this case is the number four if you will a question about the about the walk of thought and we ask why why was his failure to mention the walk of thought in response to a question about a rally so so damaging when it mediately when the i j a says to him what about this he recalls it recalls it with details so i can understand finding an adverse credibility when you leave out a bad fact but here he just under examination he didn't mention it under examination why does why is baroness credibility because i would submit that the immigration judge here really bent over backwards to be accommodating and really refocused the petitioner several times with language that kind of teed up what it was he was looking for and you have a question and answer there what's wrong with that you know nothing i agree that he seemed to be considerate of the  as i recall when he asked about it and i think you're right i think he was prompted because of one point he says to him were you arrested he was asked specifically and the petitioner responded y s his answers were consistent when prompted not inconsistent so i think there may be some confusion here due to the many acts that were detailed in the petitioners declaration and at the time of trial at his hearing when you have this kind of a mash up you have a little bit from this one a little bit from that one and in fact all of this the four signature events what we're talking about here sequentially is in august two thousand so at some point the immigration judge back to what we're talking about many go says why don't you just tell me what you do remember and the the petitioner says he says do you remember the immigration just guys answer the guys we organize the walk a thon with who says the judge who got taken who got arrested answered some of the guys who were organized at the rally with were arrested question who served please identify them  the names i don't remember the names question and these individuals who got detained when you when did you see them next i can't say it then goes on where the drug testers say how that's in cases to with the asylum statement i understand how a judge could say you don't remember the details of this therefore i don't find your credible right that's not what the immigration joints he said it this omission was inconsistent with the asylum statement so tell me how what do you venture he said was inconsistent with the state because ok that's specifically what he says and means he does not say when yes he was arrested his claim is that he was arrested and he said guys were arrested the it he was arrested he was arrested you're on i did you say he wasn't arrested i mean i here's here's where i think the inconsistency is he says guys were arrested without saying that he was arrested only after extensive back and forth when i mean when the questions get narrower and narrower and narrower where you sir rested yes why did you say that oh i didn't think the question call for it that's that's just not credible and it certainly the idea that that compel reversal i just think there's no support for that when when the immigration judge after giving him a lot of support and a lot of hope said you know tell me what you do remember he doesn't say people were throwing rocks at me he doesn't say that i was cruelly tortured he doesn't say i spent three days in jail he says none of that he was out all that those are admissions i'm asking you whether what we think he actually testified to was inconsistent with his asylum if we're getting down to that level when the there is another incident which the the i a focused on as well and that's this august two thousand demonstration where there was a black listing in the black question again i mean the significance of this is important because what the petitioner says is that he was blacklisted and they were up they were made to register as prostitutes i mean obviously that's a humiliating deeply humiliating event and he simply does not mention this blacklist at his at his hearing and that is something that is number four i'm sorry that's number one in the board's reasoning so i recognize it's confusing it's been confusing for me to try to patch all this up but number one in four in the board's reasoning are the two that were we have talked while i've been up here and it is is one of them enough another word so that is really correct about one that would be enough one is enough provided it goes to the heart of the claim and that was what i was trying to get to is that this is a significant event a deeply troubling event that no one would forget and it absolutely relates to the reason that he fled the country i mean indeed the last thing that he says you know says that he was told at the walk on was he would be killed if this happened again i mean i don't think that you forget that and it certainly goes to the heart of the claim was there i'm a jerk until the record was very translator there was this the on the blacklist it was his you know here's what happened to be i said you didn't mention in your asylum statement that you were placed on a back blacklist and you say in your brief no actually he admitted it from his testimony not from his asylum statement right wrong you know i can see that i'm just trying to put it in a little bit of context and i think and i'm sympathetic to your problem with the i j a does a very thorough job and for some reason the board seizes on four incidents rather than the record as a my point is the arrest is the important point not the walk upon itself i would argue and it looks like respondent was answering the questions like what did you witness at the walk a thon he said people getting arrested and then later they go well what about you is mad she goes yes of he immediately says yes i was arrested for three days why didn't you say that earlier and he says the arrest did happen i was arrested but that the question i didn't realize that the question was about the arrest put aside  were arrested you didn't say i was arrested surely i would argue that the discrepancy i would argue there is absolutely zero discrepancies and the incident i think the respondents counsel was talking about was oral testimony not actually in the written