inconsistency these implausibilities that simply don't exist and an alleged lack of detail in describing events that occurred outside of his presence or when he was just a child first  they took my father to the police station the immigration judge found that to be inconsistent and this other point you're talking about here the original statement the a say that the police threatened to hold his father until mr singh presented himself but the i j a found him inconsistent because it's supplemental statement didn't also include that additional detail and we would certainly said that it's an omission of a it is original asylum interview as well as his initial application all say the same thing that statement is only left out of one document it's left out of a supplemental declaration which isn't intended it's a supplement it is have this document here but i'm not going to give it much weight because it doesn't meet the formalities of proof that i'd like well i don't understand why the immigration judge didn't swear him to the statement i mean typically when we have a hearing like this counsel offered to have his wouldn't the provisions of the real i d act directly address in this kind of a case where the ninth circuit case law has seized upon the arguments that you're properly making about you know it doesn't go to material to the heart and precisely correct mr singh corrected that when he filed his supplemental statement and that was filed before he began any testimony at all before the immigration judge especially with the immigration judge is saying here is he's punishing him for correcting the statement before he's put under oath and before he provides testimony in support of is that the patient now in faulting that you're saying for failing to provide sufficient detail the immigration judge in my view he made two critical errors i mean first he faltered mr singh for failing to provide details about certain truly incidental natters without even asking him to provide those details for example on page eighty six the admin the immigration judge notes that mentioned attending various rallies but he didn't specify a single one well mr singh didn't but then again he was never asked to and his problems don't have anything to do with any of the rallies that he attended now and this point i think the second circuit view is exactly right the second circuit said in a similar case so if the list the circumstantial details can be expanded indefinitely a legal standard that empowers an immigration judge or the b i a to rule against a petitioner who fails to anticipate the particular set of details that the fact finder desires but does not request through questions directed to the applicant is no standard of all it would enable the administrative decision maker to reject whichever his presence or when he was just a young child for example the immigration judge repeatedly fault mr singh for failing to provide the questions that the police asked of his father during the various occasions that they detain his father this is in the immigration father and it's important to recognize that the detentions that are issue here began in one nine hundred eighty five when mr singh the six years old he's asking for details about detentions that occurred when he was six seven eight nine ten years old and it wasn't even there anything that mr singh would have to say on this point is obviously speculative and immigration judge himself recognise that when he cut off testimony on this point and this is on page one seventy four of the record i don't understand how the immigration judge on the one hand can cut off testimony as speculative on this point and on the other fault mr singh for failing to provide the details about what transpired during these various tensions s the immigration judge repeatedly fault mr singh for failing to provide details about why the police want to arrest him again he's here the immigration judge of the century asking mr singh to get inside the heads of the police officers who are looking for him and tell tell the judge what case for example we know i know from reading the human rights watch report that the police regard individuals cut pro cost on individuals who flee their homes they regard them to be militants and we know that because i read the human rights watch report he doesn't know how the police think and how you know that's not his thing he said because a computer guy i think but he's not going to know that kind of thing we know for example my question and maybe i'm really questioning sort of some of our existing ninth circuit case law why is it improper for the fact finder to listen to the story and then to conclude that the story is not yet implausible right i  think the judge has to make it a possibility determination i don't disagree with you at all on that it's a question of how you make it and for me i think the only way that you can really make a determination about the possibility is if you consider it in the context of country conditions and in this particular case it seems to me that the judge was really ignoring a lot of what we know about country conditions for example the immigration judge kept saying well it's just posters why would the police be searching for you because they just found posters in your room well the see student federation which is one of the leading advocates for palestine mr mr singh when he was taken in the first time he's beaten so he flees we know from the human rights watch report that once somebody who's in that situation flees the police a protected social group or religion there's got to demonstrate that he was arrested and detained even though he was a low level functionary of the a i s i south and he sought to have the immigration judge draw an inference that he was mistreated because of his participation in this said that after a couple of things after as you know finding him not to be credible and then finding on page ninety eight in his decision it's possible that he was arrested at some point in time and he was happy to custodial abuse but the court doesn't have any competent or credible evidence before which fully explains why he was arrested if you was in other words he hasn't shown us even if credible that he was persecuted or mistreated on account of the statutorily protected grounds that he was a member of the i s f and he was mistreated because of that well th from ok i'm credible and this happened to me even assuming it's true this happened to him he failed to make the logical inference that this happened to me because of my membership but i'm looking at it is ninety eight ninety ninety nine of the of the record that would be pages thirty and thirty one states pursuant to prior admissions now the use of the phrase is clearly and beyond doubt and clear and convincing evidence it's not statutory language as i don't believe it is you know has the i used the wrong burden of proof here that i believe that he has at that point but it doesn't undermine his credibility determination and doesn't undermine the his alternative finding out how could we how would we know that if you said that he hasn't shown by clear and convincing evidence that he was lawfully present how would we know that but the hasn't hasn't put that overlay on top of everything else you know well clearly your honor that's something that the tissue hasn't raised so he was not concerned about it so it's not an issue that's before his court and by not raising that the immigration judge used the wrong standard of waive that argument ins not properly before the court but again i would suggest that the immigration judges alternative finding is supported by substantial evidence and there's no evidence to compel a reversal of that decision  explanation of any perceived system sees the form the basis of it and i'll silent i'm taking a look at excerpts of record one sixty three mr dillard the government never gave them an opportunity to explain any of these proofs even consistencies were later found doesn't that require us to remain for the review credibility issues though i noticed that petitions council didn't include at all in his argument the press reports and the fact that the immigration judge found edition was not credible when viewed against the backdrop of the country por undermine his entire planet is a low level functionary of the ai s s f the point of the police would have such an extreme interest in him to make a trek across two states in order to pursue him for basically having generality it's a generalization that in a particular case may be incorrect that is that the police may be in error in thinking that there was something more than posters there but that would require us to know what the police were thinking it doesn't mean that he that that he has a state  his membership is undermined basically because the police unfortunately mistreated many people many indians in the state whether they were secret or they are and i asked myself organization whether they had any anti government of political views and so when  against the backdrop of the state department reports it's clear that the petitioner didn't present compelling evidence that he was persecuted on account of his membership is a low level i ask this member and then i'm going to the well founded there's numerous press reports in this case in exhibits twelve fourteen and fifteen specifically that indicate clearly that membership in the a i asked says that in itself does not constitute a reasonable basis for fearing persecution upon someone's return to india and as a matter of fact petitioner cites in his brief dr cynthia mahmood for the proposition that he would fear i have a reasonable fear of returning to india and she stays in page two seventy six the same person not being picked up when they're no longer of interest so it's clear that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate compelling evidence to reverse the immigration judge's decision and they responded with respect only quest of the court denied the petition for review thank you very much with regard to whether there are the conditions are sufficiently changed is missing he doesn't even grapple with it fact is that the police are still looking for mr singh he testified if you accept this testimony is credible we have to accept this fact is true in other words the country conditions were not precisely yes your honor he testified at his hearing that just three months earlier the police had visited his family's home searching for him once again so i mean you can talk about these abstract changes in country conditions but there's no way those abstract conditions can overcome his credible testimony because the police three months prior to this man's hearing we're still looking for him you combine that with the fact that the state department says that torture is common and i think there's