into the first case before us the sick the sikh cultural society versus us citizenship and immigration services morning your honor the issue before this court is much the same as it recently was before the third circuit in pentecostal church versus acting secretary united states department of homeland security and that is whether the agency may deny a petition on a grounds that was not intended by congress to be a requirement for that petition the issue was whether or not religious whether or not the two years of experience carrying on a religious vocation prior to the filing of the petition could be done when the person was in office was not an authorized date of employment the this the c i s actually adopted a regulation stating that a person could not carry on employment in a in a as a religious worker in fear were unauthorized or that that would not count towards the two years but the third circuit rejected that because they said that this was clearly not a factor which congress intended to be considered and the circuit relied upon to two reasons several reasons but two of them are directly a pleasurable to this case one was a definition of what constitutes the word the phrase carry on the third the regulation and action of the statute requires that one have carried on work as a religious as a religious worker for two years prior to a special immigrant religious work petition being filed upon one's behalf the third circuit looked very carefully at the meaning of this phrase carry on i could find nothing in that phrase which indicated that one had to be in an authorized state of employment and one had to have employment authorization to carry on occupation as a religious worker by the same token there is the issue the same token here the c i s has denied this petition in large part because the eight because the petitioner was unable to prove that the beneficiary here was compensated for his work as a religious worker during the two years prior to prior to the petition being filed and again there is nothing in the definition of carry on which requires that a religious worker be compensated for that work the third circuit also held relied very heavily upon the supreme court's decision in roselle zero in which they said that where the section where the immigration act refers in numerous sections to a certain requirement if it doesn't refer to that requirement in the section under discussion that is a clear and sign the congress did not consider that fact to be taken into consideration and the immigration nationality act is chock full of requirements that aliens be paid for their employment we just pointed just just up going up just through section eleven eighty two of the act we found eight such examples which we pointed are brief but again the provision pertaining to special immigrant religious workers contains no such section contains no such requirement so applying the reasoning of shalom to this case one must come to the conclusion that whether or not mr singh was paid for his employment while he was or while he was carrying on the occupation with special immigrant worker is simply not a factor which congress intended to be considered in determining whether or not a religious immigrant worker partition could be approved upon his behalf and of course as we know from the supreme court's decision in the in in motor vehicle manufacturers association versus state farm mutual mutual auto insurance  and agencies do decision is arbitrary and capricious if it is relied upon factors which congress is not intended to consider now the agency is trying to reshape this issue into a into a matter of credibility and they've said that the issue here don't i mean even though they're all the cases they always issue this argued about below is whether or not the man was paid and in fact will how much he was paid and whether and where he said how he was paid they said well what this is really about is  credibility but this court has ruled repeatedly in cases of silent applicants that where a person where there inconsistency is pertaining to a matter which is not central to the issue that that is not a valid basis for denial  now an asylum application is asylum application is just another application for or for a for an immigration benefit there's no reason why this rule should not be a political here furthermore the agency has completely failed to this to show even a single case in which a application for benefits under the ministry to protect procedures act has been properly denied for immaterial inconsistency they cited six cases in their brief  beside the point here the issue here really contrary to what counsel said is indeed credibility most notably the who as c s is briefing is most notable for what it not what it says but what it doesn't say it ignores the most troubling the two most troubling aspects of as c s is submissions to the administrative agency first sings disavowal of the affidavit application at issue here and that conclusion is especially appropriate because it was as c s that bore the burden of proving that the petition should be granted moreover there are there are discrepanc compensation that is serious allegedly paid him some documents have him resigning at the temple other documents what's really going on i trying to thread that needle your  honor and to use a term of common part common parlance is very difficult i don't know how we can resolve all those and consistencies i don't know how a person can live in one place and another simultaneously i don't know how a person as significant efforts to make sure that he gets that is filing is approved so well there's a lot there's a lot of effort and then that there were in that there were several there were i guess i think ut it is quite frankly rather befuddled and asked to counsel's argument that the in consistencies are are immaterial again that ignores the submission of the altered w two form and and sings disavowal of particular acts of persecution per persecuted people generally don't keep records in iran are not given records of acts of persecution so it's understandable that there might be discrepancies in the date when a certain when certain  conduct occurred perfectly understandable and of course that in lee's on this this court understood that and realize that there should be that there very well can be some discrepancies and and that discrepancies may be minor enough to not affect ultimate credibility finding but we're talking here about conduct events that happened here in the united states basic conduct like where a person lives or lived how much a person was paid those  authority to deny a petition certainly doesn't act arbitrarily or capriciously or contrary to law by saying if a petition you know contains certain factual representations but the  documentary evidence in support of that petition is literally all over the map you know that petition should be denied you very much thank you for if that is reserved to honor i wish to thank my honored colleague because far from rebutting our point is actually reinforced that this case is all about the petitioners in consistencies on an issue which the even the government does not claim is relevant to the matter for just one point about the ultra w two the alter w two wasn't even filed in this case the alter w two was filed in another case two years after this petition was filed so what relevance that that in itself is in support of one of the motions to reopen or no it was not it's not in this record at all the government put it in this record because it serves their purpose where did the government get it they got it from a somebody subsequently filed for mr saying in trying to extend his r one status two years after this petition was filed it's certainly a well established rule that the petitioner must have all the evidence the in to establish his case at the time of the petition is filed by the same token i think the government should have all the evidence that they're going to refute his his eligibility at the time it's filed not bring up something that was filed in a different case furthermore what is was it in this case that the the the there was a request by the government for the relevant you to know your honor we may have we may have submitted it after they brought in with respect to the petition in the present case was there not be perfectly frank with you in your honor i believe not i can tell you why i don't think so because the administrative appeals office does not make requests the administrative appeals office simply adjudicates what's before it the level below the district level or the regional service center they make requests for evidence through a ministry of ministry of appeals office does not make requests for evidence and it was this issue certainly only came up before the a o and i'm quite certain that the record will show that they owe brought it up first and then we submitted it just with a statement from the accountant saying basically with all that the these so called alterations was just correcting