asylum case about problems that mr koja cari experienced in the because of his involvement in the political opposition group the judge immigration judge guzman tonight testimony and she also tonight the cat let me ask you a question about the that final hospital stay where we have pretty uncontrovertible evidence that he's our route out of moldova on november the fifth and here at these records it showed six which is pretty plain with the wrong date but my question is this does the immigration judge ever say that they don't believe that he was even in the hospital today believe that the whole certificate is phony or is the debate just about whether he remembers that he leaves is his explanation plausible for mixing up whether it's six to the fifth your honor the whole the whole debate really was about the  dates there was so there's no statement i'm finding you not credible or i'm finding this corroborating evidence to be insufficient because although i've been proffered a hospital certificate i think know there was no statement about phoniness she did the judge did have problems with the there were three there were three hospitals records related to that last incident the very third one of the third one she did not mark into evidence she just marked for identification but really so the focus was on the the two other ones  and these were all admitted into evidence and and nobody raised any issues that these were not then there would be so i take it your position is that although there is some confusion about november five in november six on actually in the hospital or whether he was an outpatient you know this is one of the interesting things is your honour's is that i don't think that that was the the issue with the judge when you look in the verse in the analysis section of the adverse credibility it's not really the judge doesn't mention it in an earlier part of the of the decision in a footnote she kind of mentions of but that's not really an issue with her i know that the i think that the board mentioned it but the board can't make a new factual basis for an adverse credibility finding on an appeal so that was not really an issue with the judge her focus was on the day and you know she ha problems with the medical records in general that she talked about she has some problems the medical records and i think the other big problem she has is with this august twenty eighth two thousand and nine  date when he's at the at a v s and he thinks he gets this certificate saying that he's a student and he's just left wordless practically at one round of the hearing where she says the certificate state october sixteenth and he's talking about august twenty eighth he has absolutely nothing to say about it until you know with a new lawyer and all sorts of other time to think about it he comes up with another story  eleven months later whatever it was something like that a while later so i mean the judge is thinking you know what are you so so what explains this fuzziness about the student status  i think one of the and why and i guess the real question is why was this not something whether you think it's persuasive or what i think is persuasive why isn't something that the immigration judge was entitle to weigh negatively know one of my problems with this this whole thing about the document first of all this is that yes the judge may mean under real id the judge is slow more open to these two to these factors one of my problems as is the judge doesn't really talk about what is the relevance to this if the issue is whether or not he was on the at a yes on the date that he was picked up well we have his testimony and we also have the police certificate that states that he was picked up he was arrested he was encountered on the premises of a yet so it doesn't seem to be that the judge has a real wayne this is actually one of my general problems with this case is that the judge when you take a look at the analysis here it's really a listing of her problems but no real analysis and then if under real id you're supposed to do a totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors well why not take a look at in addition to the negative that is where the where his where mr kota charise testimony and others things clash take a look at where they're where they actually they're consistent and with the with regard to i mean he testified he was there on campus the police reports back that up i mean why not and then and then do a real weighing this is something that the judge just just doesn't do and the board doesn't really help much either i mean i have to say this is someone who has done asylum cases this is one of the best documented of silent cases i've seen so yes the judge could use it as a negative but chance to weigh it against everything else just i take it the record does not include anything like x it would not be unusual for that to be evident on an x ray taken today right as far as i can tell there was nothing in that and in the record but i don't think that  case this is of with is that the judge just simply assumed that the medical records the medical book would be the better evidence now whether or not that's the better evidence is required when know from from what i see from the record you know it appeared that his mother it was with his family and most of us saw the words yes he said yes yes i'm sorry i didn't know this but without a one hundred percent guarantee mr tennis so this is a random question but it's it's related to this medical book and it's also related to why one might rather have a hospital certificate than the medical  book so my understanding from this record is that this medical book is something that the doctors jot down whatever they've done over the years and without maligning an entire if a rational person could think that a printout of a hospital record that would be easy to translate might be a lot easier than somebodies hand scratches and cyrillic so i'm not sure that i would draw any negative inference right at the moment from the fact that these records came from the hospital but more importantly i i could find nothing from the immigration judge to the effect that there was any question that he had spent time in the hospital quibbling about nov fifth or sixth struck me is completely irrelevant since it was very clear from the government's testimony that it was the fifth the truth is when you're traveling overseas as he was doing as well as one has done that many times you can get mixed up as to what day it was anyway you know you leave the united states you know on tuesday and you land in china and all the sudden it's thursday and you know  you don't know what you're doing so a lot of these things are seemingly discrepancies really don't look as though they're material and so i'm going to ask you i mean clearly after the real i d act it doesn't have to quote go to the heart of the case but i think it still needs to be material something utterly irrelevant should it couldn't be six right and the record says the sixth phrase he spent all one of the things is that early on he says when he's confronted with this he goes i made a mistake it was the right and he has the documents from the hospital that well the original docket doesn't say he says he's treated on the twenty eighth the second document says he's treated through the six and then finally the last one that he produces in september states that well he was supposed to be there through the six but in fact he left the fifth we've got three different kinds of medical records here is it possible he's going in and out of the hospital the question and the board actually addresses the immigration judge her as as counsel said didn't focus on when he was or wasn't on the hospital  the board noted in finding it and discussing the testimony with regard to the october twenty fifth and said and all of us on all of the all the follow on from that the board question whether or not he was in the hospital or wasn't in the hospital his affidavit in support of his asylum application he doesn't mention that he's in the house and in fact the medicaid if he sent an outpatient of course you know dog pens what you mean by in the hospital karrar you sleeping there that night or are you just calling and somebody is checking you know your bandages correct your honor ed but interesting lee there is this what he effectively says is that he was in this is at the record i think around two zero six to two away he's at the hospital and those parents came to get him this and the way in which the discussion proceeds indicates that he's there the whole time from the twenty eighth through the day he leaves it's only when he comes back later with a new testimony that he said that he presents that he was an outpatient that he was there that he would go every day to check in and have his i v changed all that so the day that he comes in the date that he goes is important because if he's an inpatient this whole period through november the sixth well that's not possible if he's an outpatient coming out coming and going out maybe he can go in and have say for example a cast on his right arm removed and then go from there to and then go from there on the bus to the ukraine so let me just try to think there are a few things mr tennison that are not disputed here right now we have a timely claim for asylum not just a sort of desperate defensive measure right that is correct we've got a different plaintive for petitioner who was a member of have i believe undisputed evidence that the petitioner was in police custody at the times and places that he claim to correct that is not something that's been found by the immigration  is there any dispute about it i would say potentially yes your honor why if he has been found not credible in his documents and the documentation he has presented is not credible then becomes a question as to whether or not say for example not just the medical records but also the police records that he presents are fabricated so so the government's theory is that this whole already of police and hospital records is just a fabrication and the discrepancies in dates show the evidence that the plane if we needed and received medical care for traumatic injuries at these times and places associated with the police custody but you want to say no i want to say no i mean the implicit in the immigration judge is questioning of the medical records of the police documents and of the letters that were provided by his attorney is  finding that those are those are not reliable so what does that mean you you know one has said that they are forged documents that they are created documents and immigration judges have no hesitation in saying that sort of thing when that's what they think they'll send them off for some test of authenticity you've probably been involved in cases where that's happened  you can think about credibility adverse credibility fighting in two ways you think about it as being a finding that a person doesn't know what they're saying right that the statements that they make for the doctors they present are neutral with regard to the things to which they test actually the immigration judge looks at these documents and says they're not a good enough match you know with what he has to say it's not that the documents themselves are bad documents but i don't think the immigration judge thinks that connects the dots in the right way it if the immigration judge had thought for example that he had then that these documents say the police documents were sufficient at least as to some things like was he arrested on august the twenty third reich and what were the bases for those arrests then those were sufficient then you would also be able to let you know then the immigration judge might also and i don't want to put any words in the immigration judges mouth but it may very well be the case come back and even though the board can't make the adverse credibility viney it can review it and here the board although it only spoke to the medical documents did affirm what the immigration judge said and found that there was no credibility and it was an across the board adverse credibility  i don't find the petitioner credible because the police say they had legitimate reasons to arrest him for them that's our basis for discounting his credibility  right that seems extraordinary that it's actually when they said if you're insubordination right if they're insubordination things like that the government really concedes that in the abstract if that was it and you looked at it that would be a sufficient reason to right a little leery of what the immigration well ok and we also welcome him well we also have the immigration judge i think criticizing mr pritchett carries credibility because over the course of the proceeding he kept digging for additional documents to corroborate why does that rationally undermine his credibility well if you take the medical documents i hope i don't go to please please if you take the medical documents it's because when he comes back each time the medical documents are different that's going to be a different importantly that's that's the issue let me well let me go through the difference s if you look at the original documents have him with a dislocated shoulder and they had him if i remember correctly and i could be in this but i believe that just looking at a child or versus an upper right radial break and soft tissue contusions versus a human tell me right that's not a big difference well actually in this medical system that may be a little sketchy right so you've got the difference between what is a her shoulder o radius is a bone in your butt rock that radio is also a kind of brick right so there's that there's also the indications that he's home at the hospital and then there's a change in the dates at the same if it goes back now they will consider the regime as it exists now those kinds of documents could come in and be discussed but i just thought i'm only wondering if the time goes by maybe all the stuff that happened before is different in which he was where he claims to have been and where the immigration judges he was we have a twenty in the twenty twelve country conditions report we actually have information that he that the head of the department was fined for the activities following the i guess it was april ninth demonstrator big demonstration yes but on the other hand i just i can't let this go without saying that the immigration judge makes a particularly i almost want to say silly remark on the torture part of this after this testimony from coke are thinking that torture isn't going to happen because moldovan law criminalizes inhuman treatment and torture and there's a sentence of prison where you're probably not from chicago but i'm going to tell you that there was an infamous police officer here named officer verge who tortured people in the city of chicago for quite some period of time he hung them from the ceiling he electrocuted them he did all of the things that you it recognizes torture and we have laws against torture in the united states too we actually have laws against murder and murders happen so it seems to me the fact that there is a law count in these in different ways but suppose an immigration judge offers twelve reasons for discounting somebody is credibility right you're on it four of them are absurd five of them are trivial three of them might carry some weight know other administrative law contexts in that situation we would say you know maybe you could justify this finding but this administration of adjudicator simply failed to build a coherent logical bridge between the evidence and the ultimate decision and vapid while allowing some leeway for the counting looks like this case to me your honor if that's the way to read this case in this is sort of a some of the parts as opposed to a holistic buying in then if you find that these parts don't add up or that they don't add up but given the fact that the board found this to be the totality of the circumstances case some of these things drop out perhaps the board needs to figure out whether under the totality of the circumstances the new circumstances davis it's just a very small you know in terms of the medical documents or is really only one that was given at the very end but all of the documents were admitted into evidence before the first merits hearing i adverse credibility decision and said to have the case and back to the judge to look at the merits of the claim were your clients now ok i'm sorry where are your clients now there in the chicago area  you thank you very much