immigration judges decision the immigration judge based the adverse credibility determination on for reasons demeanor implausibility omission and inconsistency is an all addressed why each one is wrong  the act and the beholder immigration judges adverse credibility determination must be reasonable and it has to take into consideration the individual circumstances of the applicant air or at  we may not see that we give it extra deference but it is very difficult as an appellate judge when the fact finder cite things like what may have been a nervous tic i don't hold and  you could go either way on that i mean i hear i hear your argument but it could also be an indication of similar just walking away and the finder of fact actually articulated  responded very calmly tense or act examination and then on cross examination became very nervous and agitated and squirming and so the judge was able to say ok on direct very calm chaotic on cross when confronted with questions there's nothing here other than the fact that she just says truly the judge articulate to say this is an intent indicating she's not being credible so not only is it not nonverbal demeanor it is there's no explanation as to why repeating the word and i might say you know are a lot of why with that would be indicating have not credible also dan being consistency where the judge says that she didn't talk about the fact he was getting released she does on paper from thirty paragraph thirty eight of her declaration the certified record pace to our nine contacting her in different ways so there's not an admission there and also the records you know her cousin samantha also said that he was getting out in the day passes and then she testified today and again she testified in artfully about it trivial whether her son was six months or three years of age or one of the violent incidents since and she explained there were so many incidences that happened that i can't remember and i says i think it was you know he was of two thousand and three or two thousand and four we don't have a lot of time left who could you talk just briefly bob yes i think the judge does the same thing with daniel as far as speculating and we haven't didn't really talk much about speculation but damn you know response to question the main inconsistency is he said he didn't have problems with gangs in school and then the judge later when he's talking about a problem that he had and he was still involved in school at the time and so that answered the literal questions about it is not an inconsistency and then the nd thing the judge finds not possible for daniel is the fact that he was told to leave the body and then found out later the body went to the hospital and i think in order for daniel to believe the judge suggesting that the body had to stay there and it would be there today for example but at some point someone found the body of sex in a hospital all the neighbors talk so the judge there's nothing in the record that contradicts danielle's testimony six regarding the body eventually going to the hospital and him finding out about it and the judge is speculating that if nobody you know if if there were only people there watching it then later nobody could find out about the body and that's  through his mother that's case won but he's twenty three years old so he fell to suffer a petition for suing asylum on his own week we could theoretically deny the mothers petition which would his written statement he said he was threatened by gang members who told him that he had three days to provide them in information about the gang leaders in his neighborhood