morning everyone we have six cases on our calendar this morning we will take a break after the third case which is morality versus herrera our first case this first and one of the primary reasons why the board messed up on was because the substantial evidence shows that the board arrogance of staying in the adverse credibility finding the immigration judge gloat specifically the board meets several prejudicial grave errors one is limited relied upon the unreliable inherent inherent meaning unreliable testified for him on his behalf which is impeachment rule but also paul i said i thought for him as well but it doesn't much matter but who is being impeached but i thought the purpose of those notes was to impeach testimony before the hearings throughout you can have an opportunity to look at look at those statements medical reports that were prepared by other individuals in received by a sister and then consider in assessing the credibility of the application well i would say that they could be but not assessing his credibility of the version was was submitted why if if if you have statements from the sister and the uncle and documents from the hospital that vary being correct accurate and honest because it's consistent doesn't mean it's correct yes if you have if you have testimony or statements from others that what i think the judge should not take into account who prepared the statement you know that there was a second person's committed there is a if you will a corrected version submitted for all the statements from good morning me a place a court please and more not only on behalf of the attorney general the court should deny this petition for view because the record does not compel the conclusion that the petitioner was credible the agency identified numerous inconsistency in the most testimony and his documentary evidence regarding key aspects of the scoring including the members of his family when he was arrested and detained when he was hospitalized and where he went after he was released from the hospital because a record does not compel a not terribly important under the real i d act the immigration judge when assessing the credibility of the applicant can look to any inconsistency whether or not it is material or go in or otherwise known it goes to the heart finding fatal or just a factor the in this particular case the critical determination was fatal to the applicant twenty eight there could be a case in which the immigration judge would determine that there were credibility issues but that there were other corroborating evidence that would support the applicants claim however in this case the petitioner has not identified such independent about the affidavits that were provided from petitioners uncle and petitioners brother however what was significant to the immigration judgement the fact that the the inconsistency is between and he's submitted that evidence from his uncle and his brother to support support his claim for relief so where that evidence was inconsistent with inconsistent with what he testified to in that were inconsistent that was a reasonable it was something for which the immigration judge cuts into question what actually happened what what what what are the what are the facts of this case of i'm getting materiality issue that was raised a few minutes ago what what was protected but what's an inconsistency that was particularly troubling here one inconsistency that was particularly troubling for the immigration i judge in reference to the affidavits submitted by petitioners uncle was what happened after he was submitted from the hospital did he leave came immediately or did he wait for four or five months a camera room that was one inconsistency that that came to light when the immigration judge was looking at the affidavits from from  his political use is there anything that contradicts that basic narrative the when the immigration judges assessing the evidence is looking at the totality of the circumstances and whether or not the petitioner presented a consistent claim for the for the whole claim the the uncle statement was not inconsistent with regard to the trip to the alleged treatment that he received in camer the inconsistency that was identified by the immigration judge related to what happened after he was released from the hospital and his escape from him around another particularly well let me ask you i'm sorry but why does that matter in just a few in the same question but why why does it matter the circumstances of his departure it matters because the when it was th religiously two people that were involved with helping petitioners get from the country his uncle in the petitioner and they both describe different circumstances about how that happened because the immigration judge to question whether or not that's there are there was not and correct there was not a inconsistency identified about that no ok so why does it matter how he left the country i'm just asking the same question but i'm trying to figure out if your answer is it doesn't matter which i thought was the answer to your first it where you first started which is it doesn't have to go to the heart of the case that's great so i thought you were saying that part of the case is the same as materiality there's no requirement that an inconsistency go to the the heart of the matter issue so it doesn't it actually we don't care are there there doesn't have to be a materiality to the departure of facts  hospital records and of the information about the extent of his injuries and so forth and the fact they were the same date but obviously different documents and signed with signatures that appeared different that plus the inconsistency the sister about whether she even had a brother by his name in the ngs to see that how long he spent in in that kind of wondering the wilderness of thirty days before he tried to tried to move out of the camer fabricated or a manufactured immigration claim did the judge ever go that far or did he just look at each individual instance without drawing kind of a bigger conclusion the  immigration judge didn't make any short finding in his decision that it was that the applicant filed a frivolous asylum application so the immigration judge did make a short finding on appeal procedural problem with it it wasn't that there was a failure to give adequate notice the immigration judge gave the frivolous asylum application morning at the beginning of the proceedings as they do  to the board has case law which requires that when the making an immigration when making a frivolous asylum application finding you have to specifically lay out that you gave the warning and the reasons questions i have a question yeah i'm sorry so you were about to tell us about even though you think there are doesn't have to be a material inconsistency you were going to tell us that there maybe was a better in serious thing consistency than a hospital but weren't you going to tell us more about that or know you have what you have an inconsistency that might be more material even though you think materiality doesn't apply the the immigration judge in the board both look to the fact that petitioners witness who testified that he was her sister did not include the petitioners name on her asylum application and that the immigration judge look to the sister the fact that there was inconsistency with whether or not they were related was because the immigration judge concerned about whether or not he was presenting a credible claim thank you i make sure i understand your position  on materiality let's say we have a situation where the the petition there is there is there are inconsistent c's in the evidence presented but the infancy system sees truly are not material to the asylum claim itself  would it be fair under those circumstances for the immigration judge to deny relief based on those inconsistency no it would not be under the under the statue  id act the immigration judge can look to any inconsistency in the in the to me in the application to determine whether or not the applicant there's no case law that's questioning that a other words what if you have what if you have a trivial inconsistency but maybe you have several of them the i j a latches on to those they have absolutely nothing to do with the with the  irrelevant to anything related to the actual quite the inconsistency in here what's important to focus on is that there are numerous and consistencies regarding petitioners application and so there are numerous grounds  and of his is family members of this one mother her father and sister were all killed by the government because of their political activities to twice