please the court jails sick ones that for petitioner the issue presented today is whether substantial evidence points the adverse credibility finding of the i j a when the finding is based primarily on demeanor and the but when i read the excerpts of testimony by the asylum seeker aurora yes i had the same response to the written record that the i j a appears to have i thought or us this guy question he gets kind of howdy kind of dismissive kind of truculent like he says how come you say you tore your muscles but the doctor says it was  injury which you could argue either way on that that the doctor many had a sprain or but didn't write it down because sprays up that a good deal and but he didn't he didn't really try to answer he said your doctor well good luck asking the doctor reason or another country and it's hard to even ask a doctor when he's in this country or to get him on the phone and then when he says about some records that aren't there about a protest  he's supposed to put it in been in and he says well maybe some reporter put it in the newspaper like oh yeah sure i'll get the newspapers from that remote part of india and i'll read all the papers and see if you're right it looks like he's just trying to blow the i j a off with dismissive truculent responses why isn't that enough for the more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance standard that interpret it that way because the burden is on the asylum seeker and that all they need is substantial evidence on the record as a whole doesn't matter that there's an alternative explanation that might be good well perhaps your honor what it is you was trying to get across in artfully admittedly was that he didn't know and he what he did but he didn't say that i can't ask my doctor i can't get the doctor on the phone i'm going to dates were correct and they reference and most of the f affiance rather characterize the fisher's mistreatment at the hands of the police as being subjected to torture through his dad was it through a family member was he directly involved and whether or not well as to whether or not they were obtained solely by efforts of the petitioner or by someone on his behalf the i g also had concerns about lack of press reports and the i g seemed to improperly assume that that the rest reports exist i think that's where it came up that it was pretty clear th didn't believe this fellow and he says check the newspapers from i don't know whatever the town was in india well i believe if i remember the record correctly he i j had asked the petition rest reports or where any newspaper articles assuming that they were that that the rest reports existed he initialed response by fischer was the basis of non responsive but again he did after some questioning basically said he didn't believe that the reports existed because he fled to save his life he didn't go back to bother about getting reports that he believed that the rest were legal in the first instance and that in his mind reports didn't exist so i this handsome brother to me maybe well sir the letter you have in front of you i was in detention for three days it was not three days it was five days maybe i was in detention for five days the muscles were torn on the first day and maybe dr didn't and it's important i can certainly read that sympathetically and think three days five days what matters here is to tension and torn muscles bad grooves is what matters is injury while detained but i can also read unsympathetically that he's such inclined to give a straight answer on how long he was untamed or what happened to him when he was there again your honor i i can see that his initial responses could be characterized as a basis for non response i don't want to use the word truculent but at some point me perhaps me it struck me as kind of pouty like who you're challenging me that kind of sound it could be interpreted in that in that sense runner but i would i would submit that overall with the review of the record and the way that history answered perhaps it's a lack of sophistication of anything sure of the testimony many transcripts that come before this court i would i would submit have that factor that perhaps the testimony was not as crist appears it could be because of didn't specify in the record what questions he was referring to it's also interesting to note that the i j a had noted that fisher's testimony was also consistent with what was elated to the asylum officer tissues testimony in this case was consistent astable with his not only what he said to the some officer when he was interviewed but also with his declaration and consistent with  like the i j is disturbed that he doesn't mention the times that the police stopped them took his identification and said don't come back you're demonstrating again or something something along those lines and that struck me as something so much less substantial and when he actually gets at least as he alleges put in jail and beaten up that it seems perfectly plausible to me that an honest man would mention it just basically the police giving you a warning and not arresting you if we were to parse each kind of like if you ask somebody about their traffic violations they probably wouldn't even remember or relate the times when a policeman said that i really had to drive a little slower but i'm not going to give you a ticket if we took each one of these individuals we could find i'm sure as you said look at my traffic record to find things special deference because the immigration judge is the one who witnesses is the meaner in court the second is a missions from the record or from his application that came up in testimony that they fight   i think numerous corroborating statements in very important respects and it just seems like the i j really discount that you know when you have the number of declarations submitted that this position i had i would expect that the statements to really mirror each other if they do there's something perhaps a bit suspicious about that and so obviously the decorations focus on different things but it reconcile the i case findings with the record if you will look at two of the declarations center in there and this was one of the points at the board in agreeing with the i j a emphasized that two of the declarations the one from her vinegar and the one from harman jack and forgive my pronunciation that they did not have the level of cooperation that was to be expected after supposedly aurora went and lived with harvin there for four months prior to departing for the united states immediately after one of his detentions with the injuries arrest and contrary to petitioners testimony he says that he was abused mistreated at that time whereas sitting in aurora in testimony says he was not at that time and so that's where i think that yes the ones from his father from bald of and from himself are are consistent in a very subtle ones can be consistent with much of this testimony but those are striking in there but still you've got to go corporations once  also goes to the mayor's response to the court when they asked about it when the i g asked about it was i gave that answer to the honorable court is that the one where the court basically said his declaration omits one entire arrest  yes that that was one of the finest but that must be one of the your missions that i think he was pointing out the petitioner says that he was photographed and fingerprinted after each arrest and the immigration judge says is that in your application and he says no in fact and that also goes to the warnings that that was the next one was the warnings that police allegedly gave him after each arrest the i g asked him seven times if this was in was hard to hear and hear you talk about it not just the doctors no no no i'm talking about well the medical evidence and the lack of any documentation on arrests and i want to speak to something my colleague just mentioned he responded three hundred times when asked if asked about that arrest the documentation of arrests the first time he responded to the i g that he was too afraid to go back to india to get the documentation the second time he says the were illegal so there are no documents on the third time he says i didn't try two weeks back petitioners to produce documents like arrest report when they're not easily obtained well they can certainly explain that they're not easily obtained we don't know that he didn't try that was his response so your argument is there's no evidence that  and talk to the interpreter interpreter will interpret happens quite often it struck me that when the when he was a this is mr siegel i think that was a warrior for the agency was yes yes did you submit to the court any arrest records or other documentation such as a newspaper article about your arrest and he says no and were asking why not this is probably i couldn't find that  thought probably are you saying well i'm trying to come up with an excuse and that might be a good one or are you saying i looked and i couldn't find it well he's saying probably so i was wondering how much weight to put on probably because if everybody spoke english i would think this guy is just playing with me but there's a point in time that the i j a is so frustrated that he actually says to him i am putting you on notice and might not use that strong language but he says i think you're hiding something and i think that speaks volumes as to what he's witnessing in the courtroom we weren't there we don't know but that says a lot his frustrate level of frustration at trying to get but it's also in much of this testimony is inconsistent with the documents in the record as the country conditions day from amnesty international through the two thousand and eight department state country  food at meetings he is not a high level individual yet everything in the record says that the only people being targeted at this late date following the cessation of hostilities ninety five are people who are high level militant bordering on terrorist individuals the documents also reflect that he can relocate anywhere in india he does is not limited to the might briefly address a couple of concerns raise with counsel's argument i believe that the language spoken your honor was jobby and there was discussion himself said that that was not a significant concern to him because whatever he testified to at the merits hearing was consistent with what he testified to in front of the asylum officer so that was not necessarily a hours or that affidavit because it didn't specify the reason why it titian or was staying with this particular individual however the record does not have any evidence as to whether or not he this individual was privy to knowledge about it issues experiences so i believe that the i j unfairly faulted titian or for quote that lack of specificity in that particular