application yes a furred to the injuries minor the testimony makes the injuries seem much more severe or significant and the immigration judge  consider that among other things such as a separate ground for determining or making the average credibility determination plain how those are not and that that is not an inconsistency hospital letters clearly mentioned that he had been he actually distant fired that he had been treated for head injuries and other type of injury it's he didn't really explain that there was it caught on his arm as well but his focus because the he had already said that this was the men his focus was on the head and the other part of the body was also included in that although it was not in detail explain its in its item by item ised into chain sticks and other weapons too they started hitting me with the hands with the legs of with the sticks and the blood you know came out of my my body and he says that his body turned black and blue there was so much blood coming you know they p injuries and he said he received here injuries and other bruises and other part of the body that in that really brings into when he explained it at the testimony and that is not inconsistent and i think therefor point he knew who these people away and actually his father got to call claiming responsibility for that suiting it doesn't really have any discrepancy here it was that it was that he findings in terms of the factory closing and opening he testified consistently that fact it was closed when he was there when he came you know it was open at some point that is not the mini suit he had in the case because that happened after the fact not believe you you are the the demeanor in this case is just only one is small point in one point where when you was asked about of the letter that he was that's not in the record but that  this morning may it please the court over tennis and for the government to stanch eleventh supports the immigration judge's decision in this case the petitioner in his testimony gave a story that had significant emissions and inconsistency some of which went to the heart of the claim some of which even if they did not go to the heart of the claim were major and in addition in his attempt to explain away these omissions and inconsistency when given the opportunity by the immigration judge to explain away the admissions inconsistency gave varying answers expanding changing shifting answers in response to her questions and as a result the immigration judge found there to be a problem with the petitioners demeanor let's look first at the demeanor finding the immigration judge relied on two sets of explanations when she went through when she found his demeanor to be  you know based upon non responsive vase of and rehearsed testimony she looked first at his response to the question is do why he did not mention in either his own statement or in or was it wasn't mentioned in his father's letter the phone call to the father from the maoists of january ninth two thousand and eight and he first responded well he thought it was in the statement and then when he's pressed on this he says well i personally knew it was the maoists and so i didn't think that i had to put it in my statement somewhat different than saying i didn't put it i didn't think put it in my statement then finally when pressed on this issue response that i suspected maoists but i really only knew when they called my father  this sort of shifting changing explanation that gives the immigration judge pause now the immigration judge in this case did not say that the demeanor finding by itself would have  to the result summary the immigration judge says the strange thing she says even if i didn't find it you had this demeanor problem all of these inconsistencies over here or these can in consistencies standing alone would be sufficient so maybe she dead or it may be implicit in her finding that the demeanor finding was sufficient alone but if this court thinks just reading it that she just didn't make that conclusion it wasn't clear enough that's perfectly i at the very least in combination with all of the other determinations with regard to the emissions and the inconsistency certainly there is substantial evidence to suggest raise point with respect to some of the other grounds that the government has pointed us to is that these are not really a mission so much as that there are levels of detail so for example the injury or the phone call could you trust that your but one of the things this court has said on occasion is that really you can't draw a line a strict line between omissions and inconsistency in certain circumstances right that on occasions you will have language like  say for example he had said i had bruises and injuries in his statement and then he comes in and he elaborates and he says he said i'm bleeding from my arms i had a deep cut you know i had deep wounds to my arm into my head right in that case it may look more and more like it's an elaboration it's a level of detail but here he says and this is the difference between an inconsistency in a mere emission minor injuries and bruises and that actually occurs in both his own statement and without regard to the head injury which the physician points out with regard to any other injuries right they are described as minor injuries and bruises so it's not just a little of detail there it is different it is a difference in distinction is quantitatively you know not quantitatively qualitatively different testimony and that's the same sort of thing that you get with regard to i mean you do have an admission with regard to the phone call there's no mention of it in the father's letter there's no mention of it in his own statement but the phone call is a qualitative fact that one would expect to have been in both the letter and in the statement because he was driving home on a motorcycle at night and bullets for a shot past him he has no basis to know who shot him and you would expect somewhere he would indicate either a statement or it would be in the mouse right he doesn't and let me go to the statement itself and here about his turning around there is paths let's see the next bullet missed my ears with inches confused and nervous i made a u turn and headed back to the city i called my family they suggested me to stay in the city for some time i was worried for my family but my friends consoled me by saying that the family was not in danger as they were not involved in any political party still the maoists called my place and inquired about me now he doesn't say when they called inquired about him he doesn't say the maoists shot at me i believe the maoists shot at me there's no indication here that i had that he had that strong belief now the immigration judge doesn't point to this so it's so it's not something that's not a basis for a decision her decision is based upon that he doesn't reciting the phone call that no there's no mention of the phone call to the father and you would expect if he wants to claim that the maoists had called had been the ones who shot him that he would give some indication as to why he believes that and why he knows that because it's crucial to his asylum claim he has two incidents in his claim where he is the direct target of an attack the shooting and the beating and in both of these instances with the shooting with regard to his father's phone with the phone call to the father and with regard to the inconsistency with regard to the injuries there are there either emissions or inconsistency that go to the heart of the clay so just to back to the injuries part that are the first injuries of the head without referring to them more specifically as major minor injuries and then minor injuries and bruises that is correct your honor so why you know why can't we view the what you would describe as a true inconsistency as relief a further elaboration of detail about in his testimony to the immigration judge describing it as a link the cut a deep cut and significant and there are any stitches he did not require any stations he said he just came back and he shows he showed a scar that was an inch long that is correct your honor in an alarmist sense we've got i think a case where the immigration judge in the be a did not have the benefit faygo what's the harm of remaining in so we can be sure so you can be sure that we can be sure i think the immigration just was pretty clear as to which particular findings shot would fall outside of doubt i think arguably the medical documents do relate to get especially considering that gal had a circumstance in which an individual did not introduce any medical documents and in response there was a question about that there was an issue with regard to the admission there but there were also inconsistency is and those are outside the scope of go the immigration judge was very clear in saying that there were certain of these inconsistency or emissions that standing alone were so significant so went to the heart of the claim that she would find it that that she would base an adverse credibility determination on them regardless of the rest of it and that was with regard to the admission of the gunshot that was clearly with regard to the inconsistency with official physician's letter she does say that the inconsistency with respect to the statement right with his minor injuries and bruises when he states that that would not alone support an adverse credibility finding but it's very clear that she has given a multilayered decision it's it's like an onion where you peel back i say that this one does not is not supported by substantial evidence where she says that there are other ones and as a result i think this court would not come to the conclusion that the immigration you know that clearly the immigration judge needs to look at this again if the court has no further questions  issue but i think that was a that was an obvious and but it doesn't go to the heart of the claim because it happened when he was here why he left the call is it does not go on to say that what happened to him and why he's underlying