you know those states at the forefront of his mind because he knows he's going to be talking about them again not necessarily even a little a person being a farmer and there's no reason for him to automatically remember something like a marriage did i don't know how many commercial  writers may have the court my name is robert foster i'm with the united states department of justice i'm here on behalf of the respondent alberto gonzales i think that all of these cases are difficult i think the court has recently received some  citations from opposing counsel i don't know if the courts had a chance to read those cases at least one or two of them i think inform my response to the petitioners counsel's statement and i think what the  year but i think it's quite disturbing to us to think that we can charge by the fact the individual we cite to scase just kind of or a monotone that th a reason to think that it's not like you and your crew you know different cultures and different people you know things in different ways we know that in some cultures they look down in our culture we think that if you don't look people in the eye they're lying so i find it very very difficult to rely on any kind of demeanor testimony and i appreciate your daughter's point i guess that's why these cases are so difficult virtually all of the cases that i've read from the circuit involving these types of credibility determinations involve people who are from different cultures and there frequently are translation problems that are involved different people do have cultural  want to make but it doesn't necessarily follow that because all of these cases present people with cultural differences it doesn't necessarily follow that demeanor findings are necessarily a question as some of the cases have been before this court where the court has perceived that there was a cultural insensitivity on the part of the judge joe brill i think says to us that where as in certain circumstances there can be cultural insensitivity your bias or other factors that this court should take into account those aren't present here and the i j is not expected entirely to park his commonsense or her common sense at the door when going in to ascribe it seems to me demeanor issues actions reasons holds up we're supposed to approve it but that doesn't seem right in the sense that that's not the way people make credibility terminations they make them in the africa in other words somebody says i don't believe th you would go the record doesn't reflect i don't think one way or the other whether poverty or it whether you had the ability to obtain medical assistance or did not think the record is silent on that what i would like to focus the attention after what the record shows may have been a fairly fairly severe treatment at the hands of the police what what i think i'd like the court to focus on is the fact that there's a whole series of things that were articulated with specificity and we can go through each one of them and ascribe cultural differences to his demeanor or to his failure to seek medical care or do you let me ask you this counsel raised questions and i'm then morning able to say yes i think yeah again he had a basis for not finding this individual credible that's not true in this case i agree i agree there are well i i respectfully disagree here on or when i look at the cases i tried with frankly some lack of success to try to determine a bright line between those situations in which the i j a is permitted to use what i've characterize common sense and those cases where the determination of the i j a on credibility matters was considered to be speculative and to the extent that i was able to draw a line at all it seems to me that where the i j a is looking at the person and listen into what the person says and it appears from the eye jay's opinion that what the person says is inconsistent with his understanding of human nature that's common sense and the court ought to uphold that contrary example is a case like where i understand that there the court determined for example that what the i j a was doing was physically speculating to use counsel's term about what the chinese police might do and projecting his own view onto the behavior and the had relatively small weight of the most weight probably is the demeanor evidence is something which one can explain but i don't think it's consistent with this court's opinion i believe it's in sync our i may not be saying that correctly not to give the i just determination of credibility extra weight or more weight when they are i j and not any of us was actually sitting there looking at this person he made an adverse credibility determination in large part much that's an interpretation i think that would call for speculation on the part of me or petitioner's counsel i think an equally adequate explanation and i think it's what the i j a believe is that the common sense but i think was perhaps diverted with his own feelings about their response and there was this element of maybe some human nature some negative feelings towards