united states his case was denied at the at the agency level all the way to the border bases for the denial of his lack of credibility and issues on this case is based on a number of  a judge can observe someone and at trial it says that the person does not appear proud of however it does appear and says has to be substantiated by some other evidence and usually that is something on record stating what is that's what it is i mean or finding it is renting immigration judge sees the person's demeanor and decides that they're not testifying credibly right and so here the immigration judge thinks that mr gale whenever he seems to be going beyond the confines of his written statement can't you know can't speak does not seem credible does not see his difficulty answering questions specifically when the judge finds that sort of not just making an observation saying that the other person testifying is sweating was testified that was not sort of what was considered non responsive that responded a lot about the inconsistency and i want to address that too but i mean we don't have  case in which to mean are alone was the basis or not credited it's in consistencies plus the demeanor so how do you deal with the inconsistency so the inconsistency in this case there are six inconsistency five of them are the inconsistency that was to be discussed only inconsistent of what ever discussed on record was the one about the length of detention was a five month or six month strikes play out was only in that responding gave an explanation on record that he was detained for six months but he only got a paperwork to shield the he was detained for five months so that went on individual he said it was five months later on he said a six month that's the explanation that he gave and that was the only one that was ever address on record from the government or from the trial attorney i from the judge why was the patient judge the held to accept his explanation for the discrepancy between the initial statement and the testimony there's no real reason inconsistency to inconsistency is that go to the heart of the claim that that would suffice correct depending on if well that's a very simple statement if it's inconsistent criminal trial when a party testifies and consistently we don't make them have to explain we don't we don't make it so in a civil trial what why in this context immigration proceedings lawyer to the extent that he wanted him to explain anything just as in a lawyer in a civil case or criminal case can ask what he wants why do we expect the i j to identify what he thinks is inconsistent and ask for an explanation as i said i know we've said that but i'm trying to understand what i really want that what would what would you are saying is the reason we should maintain honor i actually don't know the answer to that best the case all i read and i that's what i see i don't know what was it unfair to your client let's speak a specific of a he had a lawyer who could have asked him to  testify in greater detail about the reason why the services were held in his home or asked him to explain why he said more on one occasion than another  would waive appeal and we're looking at the case it seems like the department the the trial attorney really just didn't have that much of an issue so when all sides are resting on the case the i morning john williams on behalf of the government and this immigration case the immigration judge looking at the totality of the circumstances found the petitioner lacked credibility and denied his asylum  application all related believe the board of immigration and in fact reviewed that and found an affirmed immigration judge's decision that the petitioner lacked credibility mr williams yes  the well and the way that i think is to draw out information in the record to give a comprehensive case but in this instance  the court believes there should be an opportunity to explain unless the inconsistency is so glaring at a parent and when you look at i guess my question is this so in the government's brief you said that anything that's inconsistent with the real id act is no longer good law and if you do which is the case where we said that the i g is obliged to solicit an explanation for non obvious contradictions was a pretty real id act case right now we have the real id act that comes along and it says you can't privilege contradictions or go to the heart of the claim you look at all contradictions under the title circumstances and so there's nothing that privileges certain contradictions right right and he said that when the contradiction doesn't go to the heart of the claim there's an obligation to seek an explanation that doesn't seem consistent with the real id act doesn't know that's that's right and the real id act also says that there's no presumption of credibility right as if we're in a situation where there's some testimony and it might be contradictory but maybe there's an explanation and we're not sure for the court to say that's not enough to us and was going to determination is that affording the applicant in a presumption of credibility you a different way so if we're under a regime where the real i d act tells us we cannot apply a presumption of credibility if we're in a situation where we look at the testimony and yeah it seems like a contradiction but it's not a totally obvious contradiction and then we say but that's not good enough you can't rest and was going to be determination on that without going back to the applicant and asking for more explanation is that tantamount to affording a presumption of credibility is at an appropriate or appropriate for the court to do i don't think that's appropriate for the court to so you know whether i'm not familiar with that but then consistency is here are not trivial there are there are specific and cogent reasons that the immigration judge laid out including the length of time that the petitioner gather speech and later on he says he invoked his right to freedom that's crowd that's right that is certainly sort of a glaring difference in the government's view and also goes to the heart so we don't even have to deal with these other issues eat you really don't want to this court has found that one inconsistency is it is enough and we have here in addition to we have over all a group in a foreign consistencies that go to the heart of this cla  that he was jailed for five masi testified five or six months there was also a certificate of release that was provided that had that he was sentenced to five months and didn't inconsistent statements were in fact inconsistent statements in the early so that would be enough that would be enough and would have to remain you would not have to worry that you also said something that i want to follow based on that person's demeanor alone i do not pettitte that person even though i find no inconsistent statements and that would be enough to support an adverse credibility determination  record closely you can feel the frustration of not only the immigration judge but the petitioners own counsel that the petitioner is not responsive throughout the record so they're having challenges regulations  overall broad form for inconsistency is it as you break down the details you'll note that there's that there's multiple inconsistences even within those categories along with the demeanor  would you view there being any difference between a case in which the i j a said i didn't find his demeanor credible period full stop and one in which the i j a said i didn't find his demeanor credible every time he was asked a question there was a pause and then there was a string of words that all suggested to me that he was you know he had memorized a script and was just giving it back i'm wondering whether in terms of affording  as you closely look closer and closer at the record you will find that that the immigration judge asked questions that the petitioners counsel on direct ask questions trying to pull out responses in the petitioner was not responsive to his own attorney and with regard to the inconsistency the attorney attempted to follow up his own attorney kept trying to ask the questions and then the immigration judge said let's take a pause let's go off the record let's come back on record and ask about the how often did you meet when did you start meeting person's demeanor these me to believe he is not potable that's all that and then that's all that we would lawyer on the record on and that's from the agency's perspective that's enough i would say that that the that the immigration judge would need to elaborate based on the record and stances of why he believed that the individual which he was responsive to every question he was never in tell us which something the only i j can know was how long did it take him to respond he didn't seem responsive it wasn't forthcoming in a in a in a way that not apparent from the record because every time he was interrupted was to repeat something or that one specific instant was a pause on the record was for the i g to clear someone from the hallway it wasn't there was nothing in the