out ok our main issue in this case is with the immigration judges adverse credibility finding and i think that from the transcript and from or view the record it's clear that the immigration and there were some issues with the translation that he raised and that i think were even accepted by the by the translator which is not not uncommon on in these some of these cases but i think so i think it would be said i guess it's significant but i think it's also if you were to give the transcript it's also it's somewhat understandable given given that there looks like it was very difficult both for counsel to present the matter and for the and for the appellant to respond and i think with the interruptions with the translations i don't think that these delays or that you know arise to them to the level of an adverse year old boy it really in a foreign land in a foreign court with a judge sort of you know i don't know sort of appearing down at your door you know interrupting you i think that these things are understandable and there's and there's equally possible explanations i don't think that you know if an american boy in a court in china wouldn't have some of the would be having this on the same difficulties and and presenting translation of the words to that effect and he says yes well i think there was at one point you know a difference that was agreed upon with respect to the wording and again i think that the difficulties in the translation are are more relevant to the issue of his to the average credibility determination as opposed to something not being translated correctly that affects the you know that affected substantively the court's decision in that you know that it's just one more factor going in there that you know here you have a seventeen year old boy from the country and not from our country from a different country and  do you think that the that the translation difficulties have any effect on the i think it's just part of his credibility yes i do i mean i i think in that here you have not just be having been familiar with presenting cases where the and very difficult you know sitting through many temp positions with translators and sitting through court hearings with translators there's automatically sort of a gap between you know the question and the answer or the question of the translation of i j came up with this with an adverse credibility terminations so i think it's more relevant in that as a and that and that it just gives a picture of you know just one more reason why it was difficult for this witness to to testify clearly and consistently and all those things evaluated i mean they didn't give any of you know they didn't issue have separate decision to be end with through them to evaluate it without the adverse credibility determination and i think there are sufficient facts in the record to support policy and his being expelled from school to the circumstances in which he departed from china and three his involvement with the democracy movement here so i think it's no different you know when you combine all three of those together i think that he did present enough evidence to to assume that he was entitled to asylum or withholding  contrary conclusion to the immigration judge is adverse or negative credibility determinations in this case in this case the immigration judge took pains to note the jury demeanor evidence isn't the end all and beat all know that there are instances where cultural differences may raise play here the immigration judge still went on to make demeanor findings and that she noted that the demeanor was remarkable in this instance and those variants that are essentially a trial judge's determination on the record being present in the courtroom what do you think the translation difficulties affect the credibility of this i don't think they affected him it at all and he specially in the sense that the counsel for the the in this case agreed with the translations that ultimately played out so if there were objections with respect to the translation and how they affected the overall testimony it was her counsel at that time to raise before the immigration judge and have a result agree with you know that various points throughout the transcript throughout the hearing that the the translator had difficulties translate yes i agree with that it stands out in this particular record right the translator did have difficulty in the translator also harking back i guess to an earlier case in the week where he had some difficulties translating but even taking that into account the immigration judge was there who was able to take those translation difficulties and account consult with the the aliens council this back to the translations and ultimately still noted that demeanor here was remarkable and again the immigration judge took pains to note that demeanor isn't the end all and be all noted the applicant's age but went on to say that she just didn't find the israeli's testimony plausible or credible and in that direction here are the again it points towards denying this petition for review the immigration judge went over the even this testimony with respect to the possibility of him testifying about being expelled from school and yet his mother being having a sterilization before he was expelled from school so how c in school when his mother had been sterilized and then him go on to claim that he was not in school at that time or he had been expelled and only when that went to happen well there's some difficulty with that's respect your honor he says he was seventeen year old seventeen years old at the time and  also know that he was in ninth grade at the time so he couldn't pinpoint the exact facts when that occurred and that was one of the things that the immigration judges notice he couldn't pin down which particular year that this occurred and yet he was clear about the date that he was going to register february twenty eighth one thousand nine hundred seventy at one point in the testimony and then many recognise that it couldn't be the case because it didn't jibe with when his mother was sterilized he started equivocating on his testimony in that regard so there's  difficulty there and in this case as in all these cases the aliens certainly bear the burden of proof and in this case the immigration judge noted that we have credibility problems we have identity problems then on top of that we have to meter issues and again this is a case where immigration judges simply simply a trial judge in this court is looking at the record from a trial judge's comprehensive thorough detailed demeanor credibility findings and this court should not that record on top of the standard review in this case reversed immigration judges credibility determinations if we disagree with the credibility determination should we consider the testimony or should we send it back to the b i think the immigration judge went on in just to spite her credibility determination she wants to be able to m says that the court has to send the case back to the immigration courts but in this case the court of the immigration judge went on and made the ultimate findings in this case i think the court disagreed with the credibility determinations you still have the alternative terminations made by the immigration it's just a few points first clearly the immigration judge did pay lip service to you know said the correct writing with respect to the adverse credibility finding this is not a case where the immigration judge did not say anything on the record to quote unquote support for adverse credibility finding but i do think that the record also shows that this is not a case when you hear the word adverse credibility finding you thought of having your mind the judge sitting up on a bench and you know sort of you know looking at the demeanor of the witness and that's not really what happened in this case i think you had an immigration judge you know what went on the offensive an attack the credibility and and made it very difficult again for coun of the attorney mr new i would have viewed it as attacking you know i think you know there are the there were certainly would be the first time the trial judge or an immigration judge you know expressed maybe perhaps something from the bench that called into question and a certain person's testimony but i think in this case it's not unlike the garrett vs case that sort of stepped over the line and what can you point to anything specific i think with respect to the  the in particularly with the dates and it's the comments that you know don't try to i think it's something like don't try to remember the you know don't try to remember the gates that you've memorized things and that things like that i mean i respect of the sterilization and the court you know said that that should not have been an issue so because these sort of material here doesn't make a big difference as to whether the mother was a journalist before or after he was expelled i would say that is correct but not remembering you know and unfortunately in my experience i've had witnessed it's not remember or have difficulty in testifying although it was this year versus that year and again you know you're dealing with translation you're dealing with obviously regardless the demeanor regardless of what the immigration judge found i don't think there's any shines through the record that this witness was extremely nervous young nervous for what reason the sort of the crux so so i mean i do think that that's and also with respect to returning it to the b i a you know i think if we had something from the b i am as to you know how much they considered the adverse just we just evaluate the i gave the ids decision is the decision of the board here and in that regard i think that there's you know there's again there's he's got three issues with respect to the asylum and i think that you know when there's certain things with respect to the you know this relationship between these two groups that you know men generation in the international federation of chinese students you know not being able to explain what the difference was or their relationship i mean unfortunately i think most seventeen year olds in this country not at the time of the hearing that's you know i mean he just got a new year and and you know they said that his participation was going to have to be to be graduates so we're sort of left with an unfinished story there i also think that with respect to the country reporter they just i mean since the asylum report saying that students returning to china who have been involved in the democracy or anti chinese movement here have never there's no history of them being persecuted i think that that's sort of a different situation than what his situation is i mean those are people who have come to study here presumably legally and then get involved with the democracy movement and come back legal way and i don't that's not that's not mr ch