all wake up and you write me personal no letters to my address a five hundred north brand tommy how great i was and if you don't get me will you be terribly disappointed and just put your head in the back life will go on but if i run into you in six part of the things the judge requested of the client in this adverse credibility finding if i go further if i say i as i'm leaving this beautiful courthouse and i step on one of the steps and i fall and i hit my head and i get a traumatic brain injury with memory loss and i'm hospitalized that beautiful the kind of moral hospital in six years from now would you remember would you request that i remember the type of medication i took which was a weird sounding did despite the fact of these issues my client had provided discharge instructions so provide provided you with the discharge instructions from huntington memorial hospital which had the prognosis the diagnosis medical treatments and all relevant medical documentation i think it's reasonable that the court would see that i have corroborated my testimony of events that took place six years ago after a brain injury that was caused by the police because of this minority religion so even when he did do the supplementary declarations that the judge required because he wanted us to testify and to grovel even then he was like well there are many many incidents like this even when he did submit additional documents he was like well there are many incidents like this while you know i guess he couldn't document as a whole life years and years of abuse for being a moloch on into a couple of decorations and i'm pretty sure his declaration  this is a religion that you cannot convert to you cannot marry into you can only be born into part of the reasons well that and that's why there are religious minority because their numbers can never can never increase because they make no one can convert and become a moloch on and part of the reason the would you remember that you fell down the stairs six years from now but i'll tell you one thing being having been in the military forty years ago i still remember the dates that i was there and it seems to me that he said he was there in the military ninety eight ninety nine and then at a different location different time said he was in the military in two thousand and six no i don't think he was ever given said that he was in the military in two thousand and six he w thousand and six and two thousand and six that's where he had the incidents of abuse at the hands of the police at the at the park and at the religious gathering where the police burst in and hit him and he was detained  your best point that you want to make or to point as to why this is exceptional surely my my point is that randy holder pro controlled gates should not form the basis of an adverse credibility fine even in real idea cases these are to request someone to remember new triple to request after brain injury to remember the exact dates of being in the hospital to request what gave the week it was six years ago no reasonable fa is in dates cannot form the basis of an adverse credibility finding the government challenge the medical doctor they sent it to the f b i lab in two thousand and eight and right when we submitted it and the report was in two thousand and six at this facility so you know that at times the field offices monsanto's has sent documents abroad but in this case interview challenge it so we have nothing to argue that it wasn't anything but genuine reviewing this case on the record memory loss we would like and they are cite for that your honor is correct he did initially say he served in the army in two thousand and six as to wasn't prepared by an attorney well he didn't raise that claim before the board but it was prepared they are three sixty three says it prepared by someone else so what i asked this court to be cautious when looking at the record credibility on the medical items even even matter that much if we have hospital records come firmly in the precise details what what difference does  that the the standard view here is the totality of circumstances force we don't just look at this issue in isolation so we have to look the process as a whole the immigration judge here the i j a looking at the whole  process took accepted the persecution the court details of the poor persecution that he alleged the immigration judge accepted that he had facing discrimination which is clear  the record that some armenians don't like maalik and were jehovah's witnesses as well discrimination it was a beating which put him in the hospital for one to two weeks that's a tough type of discrimination well you're on except the immigration entire point of the immigration judges decision by saying he doesn't find that this incident was credible he says he says you testified that he was in the hospital for one week and then the record shows that he was real house will for two weeks he was downplaying in th statement how long you the hospital the records show that the injury was even more severe than what he said it was helping him not harming him well your honor except we have to look again at the non respons credibility this judge may i ask this and i don't think i understood your answer how does it go to his credibility if if he says i was in the hospital for two weeks and it's actually one week then he's embellish so i think that goes to his credibility but when the immigration law judge says how long are you in the hospital he said i think about a week and then it's actually two weeks how here's my statement and this occurred and then comes and testifies and it's wrong or inconsistent that a fact that that he was in the hospital two weeks instead of one week  supports that his injury was greater than he even declared which supports his entire allegation i'm having trouble following your your argument here well your honor the provided as well look i trip i hurt my head first of all memory loss that's not in the record but it doesn't look like a challenging the records the hospital records well itself if we accept that like you i mean you haven't you haven't challenge we have in the record before us whether this this this injury that occurred after this beating that he was in the hospital a week longer than he claimed which supports that his injury was greater then even he's sane and so i'm having trouble how you're saying that that embellishing if you're saying that that's a detail that he was incorrect on and so we should question his credibility i am trying to figure out how you reconcile that with renner shrestha where it's a trivial detail how does that significant and bear on the ultimate outcome here triviality is in context triviality depends on what is being occurred around the testimony he's non responsive denny gives a date that's inconsistent with his statement and a medical certificate then he gives you can't give details and then he's inconsistent about how long he was in the hospital it's just that your best argument we have a variety of concerns here that have to be viewed in the totality and we have to also keep in mind petitioners as well now if i had an action outside this court how would i remember the six years later if you have a lawsuit in which this is your entire claim you better remember it you don't walk into a corner is a plaintiff and expect a jury to say well you have an injury six years ago i know since our lawsuit is about this but the fact that you can't testify consistently with the statements you provided no district court judge against a jury have to disregard that what's your best case that you want to highlight for us here today well obviously it's simply the real idea act your honor the real fled my country i left my wife and child behind in armenia now i want protection from the united states government here's my testimony it's not consistent with the evidence he did provide now the immigration judge and did aeration will petition and now says that documents itself sufficient he did not make that are going for the immigration judge or the board and that can't be a basis for overturning not as i said this is not what it was found but misspelled that rand was about consistencies are minor discrepancies dates and that they cannot be viewed as attempt by the applicant to enhance his claim but they have no bearing on credibility it depends again on context triviality depends on context there is not a legal holding that a date can never be a basis for an inconsistency if my entire claim for example is what's your birthday and i can't provide my birthday it's fairly relevant when this is the reason you fled your entire country and you left your wife and child behind you ben in process for four years you submitted a statement you submitted medical document you need to testify consistently and the record does not show that that if i just finish one point your honor he immigration judge would not doubt the medical record but they are for fifty seven that the forensics did find that administrative record page three forty five if i could read from the second paragraph the patient was admitted in department with complaints this in a severe pain in the lumber area multiple bruises were observed on the body as a result of beatings partial memory loss come up to my client and say sir is this the medical document we received from the hospital sir is this all accurate and complete he would say yes and we would never have an issue with it that's how to go in civil court in addition on page thirty eight of the record the judge i think is having a hard time with his credibility finding because he picks these things that are not in consistencies and he states positive weight to go through the respondents testimony and tangible evidence that there was consistency that generalized events that took place in two thousand and six occurred to the respondent and the basis for those events was also consistent but under the totality of circumstances i find events present two thousand and six cannot be considered credible under the totality of circumstances it has to be considered credible because the things he points out what gave the weak it was what's the name of this medicine you took three six years ago it doesn't make sense on a tally of circumstances he absolutely was credible and then the judge further helped that if he was credible in two thousand and six then past persecution has been established and addition i would also argue that this man has gone through a lot to or deal his whole life he's had incidents with kids on stones at him he was beaten up by children to direction of adults at school he was ridiculed and abused by the teacher because he couldn't join the pioneers risk i don't have any honor that was not in the record but the fact that he had to move his family out of the city and go to a small village and how he basically from authorities to me is an indication that it wasn't safe for him and since the persecution was a hands of the authorities