my name is joshua barr david for petitioner mr show mr show credibly demonstrated past persecution or well founded fear future persecution while the issues of past persecution and future for your interrelated i would like to start with the  agency's analysis of his well founded fear future persecution which i believe is dispositive of the case and alone sufficient to remand the case for further analysis the immigration judge provided an incredibly analysis of mr sharon's future fear page seventy eight of the record in one paragraph where she analyzes basically a pattern or practice of persecution of christians she makes no mention of nor does the board of the particular circumstances of mr chavez case that is mr sha'ath testified to proselytizing in the united states and believing that that's part of his religious belief in religious on location as a christian to do so and that he would continue to do so for turn to  china the agency gave no one else's whatsoever to the treatment of individuals who proselytize not just practice but openly prostitute ties and this is significant given the background country conditions indicate that there is far are sure treatment of individuals who are caught openly trying to bring other christians to an underground church as opposed to merely partition proselytizing in china you know he was not there but he indicates and his pastor's letter from the united states indicates that he's brought two other individuals to his church who since become christians and he testified that that's part of what he does now that he's been baptized here in the united states and is a regularly practicing christian and so what we're saying is not that the immigration judge as a factual matter erred in her analysis of the country conditions but in a legal manner that she did not consider mr shows particular circumstances when deciding that he did not demonstrate a well founded fear future persecution that alone is sufficient to remain on the case and i would also note that it's very unclear whether the immigration judge applied her analysis her negative credibility determination with respect to the past persecution to mr shows future fear she seems to indicate that but then analyzes as if he were a christian and what the country conditions were if that was the case if that was the basis was applying the negative credibility determination to her future fear analysis that would beg the question of whether or not she was finding mr showers pastor who provided a statement and stipulated testimony was also not credible because there was no one else as of the pastor's credibility and no indication to find the pastor not credible or the pastor indicated that mr show in fact was a regularly practicing christian had proselytize and brought two individuals to the church and so because of that lack of clarity of the negative credibility termination on that basis alone would require  further explanation as to whether the immigration judge was in fact providing a negative credibility determination to the future fear analysis and if so why with respect to past persecution we would respectfully assert that the agency also erred and their analysis of mr sharon's credibility the primary basis provided by the agency was the failure of mr shout to mention that he went to a clinic to pick up medicine which is the mother leader applied to his the the agency seemed to provide the greatest week to that at the outset the immigration judge erred which the board noted in asserting that mr shows statement never mentioned his mom applying the medicine to him when in fact he did mention in both of his statements it did mention it and the immigration judge errored in saying that it did not mention it the board noted that error and did not sustain that aspect of the immigration judge's decision however the board did  the aspect of faulting mr chen mr show and for not mentioning that he went to a clinic to pick up the medication his explanation which is entirely plausible not just plausible but which compels the finding that it was a reasonable explanation was that that's not an important aspect of his spleen he indicated his mom applied medicine to him the medicine didn't magically appear they don't have a medicine manufacturing plant in their home obviously it's unreasonable to expect that he would just magically have this medicine so where he had this medicine is entirely tangential to his underlying claim especially where he indicated that his mother at home applied this medicine to him and so reliant on the fact that he didn't mention going to a clinic seen a doctor to get a prescription is is an reasonable basis for the immigration judge to reach a negative it wasn't just to get medicine it was also to go to the clinic is that not important that someone's injuries are serious enough to to go somewhere to get attention well he didn't indicate he was actually treated by a doctor it wasn't that he was saying this is where i received medical treatment what he indicated was that this is where i got my medicine he said i think i went and grabbed and scooped up the medication from the doctor and then came home and my mom applied it to my wounds which is entirely consistent with his written statement and he did not testify that he received any treatment correctly he just got them that is correct and the immigration judge incorrectly referred to this is receiving medical treatment at the clinic where his testimony is very clear that he only recent obtained the medication he did see a doctor who looked at his wounds and then prescribed medication but provided no actual treatment never in his testimony never in his statement and in none of the evidence presented is there any indication or a claim that he actually received quote medical treatment and that is the exact words used by the immigration judge which further indicates that she misapprehended his his testimony in the underlying facts of the cl given this glaring error of the agency this mr characterization of the record we would assert that it would be insufficient to reach a negative credibility determination now undoubtedly the immigration judge in the agency cited other factors for reaching the negative credibility determination we list the five bases that the agency uses and negative credibility termination one of which is irrelevant to this appeal because that dealt with the issue of whether mr shall timely apply for asylum the day he called his cousin upon arrival in the united states that just knocks out one of those somewhere down to for the immigration judge found admitted demeanor finding with respect to when she asked mr show about how many times he checked in with the police and under out of lee he gives a very confusing one sentence answer riis's two times five times  t i think mean time he's done and he expresses confusion but given that we're the other the main aspect of the negative credibility determination was with respect to this misrepresentation of the treatment received in the clinic this court cannot be sure that the agency would reach the same negative critical to credibility determination based on that one single sentence and at the very least we would ask this court not to guess and to remand to the agency to see whether that single sentence where he expresses confusion about the number of times he checked in with the police would be insufficient to reach an agreeable credibility determination and certainly would be up for the agency to make a determination in the first instance unless the grounds for the questions i do have a reserve remain time for a bottle thank you thank you  the court good morning anyways jesse views and i represent the attorney general and my apologies i'm coming down with a cold so if i'm hard to hear i apologize to the best you can thank you your honor this year in this case is whether substantial evidence supports the objective evidence with respect to what was raised by counsel earlier with regard to the doctor you can look on page one forty seven of the record where  begins on page one forty six he says he required medical and then he was asked did you require medical attention and said he didn't go see a doctor at a hospital because he feared going to the hospital but instead went to a private clinic  or a private place was asked you mean like a clinic is that what you're referring to yes this private small clinic what did they do to you he provided me with medical like with my mother help me put it on did you go back for follow up treatment i went once once for follow up treatment yes indicate some page one forty seven that he saw a doctor and names that doctor again this is the first time this is been brought up in the scope of this case he did not mention it in his asylum application how how significant an omission is he does testify that his mother helped him apply the medication and as counsel argues presumably he got the medication from somewhere and so in the end is is this really a sufficient basis to foreigners credibility fine i would argue that it is because first of all though his earlier statements that his mother sowed his wound with teares which doesn't give us much in terms of telling us what kind of treatment the says of this is just they are not necessarily inconsistent not inconsistent but i do sense there's a difference between treating wounds at home and having injuries serious enough to warrant seeing a doctor he even said he feared going to the hospital indicating that that was something that was a possible course of action was seeking medical treatment at a hospital and said he did go to see a doctor he went to see this doctor on two separate occasions and this does go to the question of whether or not he experienced past persecution because as this court is held in other cases receiving medical treatment going to see a doctor because your wounds are that severe goes to the question of whether this is a treatment rising to the level of persecution and this was not the only matter that the board relied on in finding that he was not credible the board also relied on his statements is inconsistent statements regarding how many times he was detained or how many times he had to report to the police after he was released from detention which is significant because in his statement in support of his asylum application he indicated that that was such an out and durable event that he had to experience and when questioned about it august fifteenth that's not what i ask you sir ask how many times in total did you report to the police five times wait fifteen times times seven all right sir you give me three different answers of four to five times fifteen seven times which is it and the immigration judge noted that there was a ten second pause where he did not respond to a question and then asked the question again before petitioner is able to say that it was seven times and that's a given how that he indicated that this was a significant hardship for him in his supporting sting's siloam application the fact that he didn't know that he gave multiple different answers and took a long amount of time going to remember the exact number of times well he did go to he was the one who reported to the police that number of times and again if he needed additional time to think about it that's not what he did he started just saying first he gave a not response or another stop for ten seconds while first he gave a non responsive answer then he gave multiple different answers in quick succession then he didn't give an answer at all and then when asked again he finally said seven the immigration judge found that in terms of his demeanor that seemed to indicate that he was not sure that he wasn't that it was indicated that he wasn't being forthright in his claim what does that mean that he wasn't sure well really he wasn't sure you mean right i mean he was lying well the issue here is whether the evidence would compel the conclusion that he's not credible so get the j could make the inference that where he had indicated how serious an issue this was and yet when asked about it couldn't answer a simple question about how many times he reported to the police that indicated that he wasn't being lerner the pastor in china of the arrest well again may not and so the respondent argues that the pastor had simply been asked to provide proof of  tendance and his baptism so you know again how much of an omission is this and in general how do we evaluate these omissions and how much weight they can and should carry with respect to the weight of such significant issue always win it would always functionally equivalent omissions and consistencies i think or does it depend i think it would depend both on the particular circumstance of the case because also in consistencies don't always carry the same way a very minor inconsistency might wouldn't carry the same weight is a major inconsistency where say the alien failed to mention a huge aspect of a persecution claim or or was inconsistent in testifying with respect to that versus say getting a date wrong by a day so it would depend of what had happened to him that he talked to the pastor about his detention and what had happened to him and under those circumstances where we have a handwritten letter not just a form letter but a handwritten letter from the pastor the immigration judge properly rel on the pastor's failure to mention these incidents entirely in in providing the statement and he states this is true that a letter had been requested simply to confirm attendance and  unreasonable and it doesn't mention these other things on that point i believe the record is unclear with respect to why how this letter was solicited he i don't believe there's any testimony where he says solicited this letter from the pastor specifically with respect to church attendance and i believe all that says is i think i can probably find it in the record but i believe all he says is i think this is only meant to confirm my church attendance and it looks like that is page one forty eight of the record just says the pastor just provides the proof that relates to whether or not i go i did go to the church and when did i get baptized that's the only statement he didn't by any other supports the argument that was being provided to a test only to attendance and  think on that point it's arguable that whether or not he's stating this was solicited for that specific purpose or just i think it was he doesn't even to indicate that he was the one to solicit the the l and where there is that it would be unclear i do not believe it would compel the conclusion that he would be credible on that basis thank thank with respect to the pastor's certificate and i think that's the starting point is that this has been incorrectly referred to throughout these proceedings as a certificate it lettering as i'm sorry is a letter  the index where it was offered for evidence it was offered as a certificate the certificate itself indicates that it is certificate and is certifying his church membership and baptism at no point was it claimed to be a personal letter from the pastor  the fact that it's handwritten i'm not really sure how that's relevant true determining whether or not it's in fact just a certification of his membership or supposed to be a personal letter the fact alone that throughout the proceedings both the immigration judge and the b i a refer to it as a letter indicates that at the very least remained would be required for the clarification why they deem this a personal letter rather than a certificate with respect to the  his testimony regarding the so called treatment received at the clinic he specifically says that he's asked on page one forty six what did this private small clinic do for you and he says he provided me with those medical liquid and my mother help me to put it on this is entirely consistent with his written statement on page four twenty eight where he indicates quote my mother tearfully solved my wounds for treatment what about the fall there's a follow up visit to the clinic yes as you say treatment there he asked did you return for treatment and he says yes but then later clarifies that it wasn't for treatment but it was for in fact to get his medicine he would never use it he never used the word treatment he was asked the word treatment was used in a question and i don't think that that granular level of analysis occurred by the immigration judge that they determined that this in fact was him saying that it was treatment with the immigration judge an agency focused on was his failure to mention going to the clinic for medical treatment in his written statement and finally i just would return to the well founded fear analysis we have raised this issue from to the agency at all levels that his proselytising required a different analysis than that was occurred so far the b i has not responded and i do not see a response indicating in any way by the government that the analysis was sufficient to address his proselytising here in the