been your honour's the petitioner filed an affirmative asylum application she's claiming that she was persecuted in china she stated that government officials evicted her and her husband forcefully from their home they demolished the home and they refused to provide them with just compensation as a result of these actions by the chinese government the petition along with eighty other people went to protest at the government demolition office as a result of this protest the petitioner was arrested she was interrogated and she was severely be the issue in this case your honor as i see it is the adverse credibility finding made by the immigration judge i think jumping right to that since you don't have a lot of time on the p r i i appear to have found that there were a number of inconsistency submissions presentation and it's a real id case and so that all of them together formed the basis for that why should we not defer to the particular failed to cooperate for explanations for the inconsistency with her home however the immigration judge never put the petitioner i notice that she needed to provide cooperation to well it doesn't have to give the notice in all instances does either a j if the immigration judge determines this particular case that cooperation is required according to rent she must inform was not what she found it was not because she didn't agree with her reasoning for the inconsistency you know but my point is under the law that notice is required only if the testimony is otherwise credible right that's correct and he found that it wasn't so why should he give notice because her main reason for finding the first proposed find it was for lack of cooperation however she never gave her the opportunity to cooperate  that the housing place she was registered at another location and just there were just a lot of things that it would just seem that you know if if i said i was if someone said what's your occupation i would say a judge i wouldn't say that i was a daycare worker but i worked in a daycare center while i was going to school yes and so some of those things testimony she claims she was a nurse certainly this court held that in were in ran that or a discrepancy cannot be viewed as an attempt to enhance claims of persecution under the totality of the circumstance of the militates against finding the applicant incredible tell you the circumstances i would argue that this her employment occupation had absolutely nothing to do with her immigration claim there's no reason or no motivation for her to lie whatsoever regarding her employment isn't a hansard claim in any way shape or form judge no means no translation issues that was not an issue work as a nurse and she worked as a statistician before she became a nurse and again i think it's crucial to note that she did submit proof that she graduated from nursing school and she was working as a nurse here she was she was the government didn't use computers so i was written by hand and for whatever reason when she went to renew her house for registration in two thousand and one her employment information just didn't carry over for whatever reason and in the decision two to obtain that cooperation well now if if she really didn't live in the i'm not sure exactly how you say it from a building who mows building that would be relevant to whether she would have although i would be the first to admit that there were several inconsistency in this case i still believe given the liberty interest at stake namely that the petitioner is claiming that she fled china for fear because she was persecuted and she fears few future persecution it was immigration judge to give her an opportunity to cooperate her claim the first time that the immigration judge raised the issue of cooperation was in her oral decision but that point obviously the  finding is wrong and therefore we asked the petition for it be denied let me let me begin by addressing petitioner's claims that the immigration judge didn't give her sufficient notice regarding the requirement for corroboration if you look at the administrative record at page ninety three this is the very first master calendar here and it was held if you speak a little more and of having that helpful thank you administrative record page ninety three this is the first master calendar hearing held in july of two thousand and eight the immigration judge specifically put petitioners warning as you pointed out earlier your honor under circuit law and reading that's only those those notice of corroboration requirements only come into play if the testimony is otherwise credible and in this case the immigration judge after going through all of the evidence in oral testimony and her oral decision came to the conclusion that she didn't know what to believe regarding petitioners claims regarding where she lived how she worked and how grandpa lou and his wife died and how all that played together with the client and because she didn't know what to believe it's not so much that her asylum that her testimony was credible is that she didn't know what to believe and therefore the credibility finding the average credibility finding was what the immigration judge entered of where she lived the address that she and she claims that the one mile building is where she and her family lived and that was her primary residence and her claim is that because she was the government came and took the property forcibly evicted them but didn't offer them fair market value for the property she and her family weren't able to get sufficient money to buy property at the same value quality in the same area and that that was her claim and so where she lived and the primary residence is very important and relevant to her claim in support of that claim the only thing that she submitted was a property title that says she owned the property but there was no other evidence despite the fact she had her for that so little  she's i don't know if she had an ownership interest in the address the aired on her on her household registry i believe her testimony was that was her mother in law's property well she had an interest this in some ins and some places there were some places where the interpreter required clarification but there's been no issue brought on appeal either before the board or this court challenging any of the translations there are a said that this case was never mediated or never considered for that i wasn't the attorney who handled this throughout so i'm not sure why but i do know that when the court sent out the pre oral argument notice which it does in immigration i think it's the totality of the circumstances and the information in her and her administrative file which we don't have access to so i don't know exactly what the the h s based its germination on know did they ever get to that asylum withholding or that since it was an adverse credibility if i'm speaking hypothetically at this point we haven't discussed the case if we found that we didn't believe that it was supported or she should have been allowed an opportunity to rebut things that have to be remanded to make those determinations yes your honor because the board of immigration appeals decision only affirmed the adverse credibility determination it didn't it didn't address the immigration judges alternative merits ruling and under the court's decision foot it's the public good your honor she hasn't shown any eligibility for a basis to remain in the united states and under the immigration laws that's what's required it's not simply whether or were here with her no the husband her daughter and her stepson i believe are still living at least at the time of the hearing and in two thousand and eleven they're still living in conveying road and china if she if she had submitted documentation material supporting her contention that the household registers in china often contain outdated information would there have been it would  know it's speculation but would that have made a difference i'm not sure your honor i don't know if that would and i say that because looking at the the state department report there was one paragraph a very short paragraph regarding household registries in that case and how in the in the state department report and all it said was that household registers there were having that the government still relies on them but that there were so much influx of population from the rural areas to the city that the accuracy of the household registers were not it was hard to keep up with that but this was but because the government kept the population to what the household register says that the people who were moving from the rural areas to the city but had the household register still showing that they lived in the rural areas were having problems accessing services and so that undercuts petitioner's claim first of all in this case there that she moved from the world to the city was all within the same district and so if the government is still using the information on the household registry to to hold people to that information regarding the administration of public services then it would seem it needed to be accurate and that it undercuts her claim that it doesn't matter because the government doesn't care about the accuracy of the household registry so really any question that she became a nurse and one nine hundred eighty three and worked in hospitals from eighty three to two thousand and seven well there's no there's no question it seems that she graduated from nursing school that's true there's evidence in the records she graduated from there since school and received certification from a medical college in one thousand nine hundred six whether she worked as a nurse it's not however when she was on the stand she specifically said that she had never worked at a second hospital she only worth and honky from the time she graduated in one thousand nine hundred three interest she left china in two thousand and seven so she completely disavowed the existence of this her employment in the second hospital but it appears on her asylum application which according to the immigration judge pointed out she was given a chance to affirm the correctness and accuracy of the information in there and she did and she didn't  correct the fact that she was never employed at home of the hospital and additionally the immigration judge noted that her husband's medical records were apparently issued by this very same quantity hospital what she did she did she says she has never wrote that although it is listed on her application as a place where she actually was employed before she came to the united states and i see that my time is expired unless of course as any further questions we ask that question for you be denied thank you trial but in my reading of rand it specifically states if a credible applicant has not yet met his burden of proof then the i g may require cooperation so another words by my reading of this i interpret it to mean that after the testimony has been taken at that point if the immigration judge decides to believe that more cooperation is required then she must ask the petitioner to pariah cooperation given that opportunity and again that was not done here and if you look at the emigration judge did not think your client was credible that's that's the catch there that's true to your honor but again she did not that she was credible because there was no cooperation for her immigration judge made no adverse credibility fine with respect to her prosecution her beating the fact that the her house was demolished her whole argument focused on the inconsistency with respect to the her property and again as a journalist i didn't get to that didn't get to those issues because i said i don't believe you so that's so there isn't a determination that's why i asked whether because sometimes if they get to those issues then  we can look at that you know they can make the adverse credibility but then they say even if i'm going to you're not entitled to a sidearm because you haven't you know you haven't met the requisite there i mean you you don't have a strong case for cap necessarily i would agree with that your honor but again i go back to the whole corporation issue in this particular case given the liberty interest at stake naming that she's quite fears for her it's or she feels should be prosecuted she returns there would have been no prejudice to the government whatsoever but her family still there safely so that but she was the one who was arrested she was the one who was b and the testimony is clear that her husband called her when she returned to the ninety three last time that government officials are going to her house in search of her