over basis in other words the court is not bound by the administrative position below and it does not need to give the a any deference with respect to its decision had to be a subjectively and objectively rational basis or appropriate basis for concluding that you know there's a fear that would warrant asylum right yes ok now if you would address please mr wong whether there's a difference between credibility and persuasiveness under the regulatory scheme the real id act as i understand it  you can succeed on testimony alone in establishing a fear future persecution if it's credible as an persuasive and there's a third item but this is it the fact that those things are listed separately seems to indicate that there are two separate concepts right that's correct so if there are two separate concepts is it possible for an applicant for asylum to be both credible and not persuasive it is possible judge i have knowledge that there are three different elements to sustaining the burden of proof credibility  and credibility the b o h seems to have applied to conferencing and equated to credibility but can it be read can be opinion of the b a a be properly read  as saying well we sent this back for a credibility determination and we didn't get one so we're going to accept that that mr lindh is credible and alternative finding of credibility found that mr lynn was credible for purposes of the decision and for appeal i thought the i j a had said look i'm not going to make a credibility finding but in the absence government that is showing must be so persuasive us to demonstrate that prosecution is more likely than not it is a con it doesn't have to be more likely than not but i don't understand the government to be saying that i mean you're i think what you're altar as the alternative finding is the is the i j a saying if i were to have to do something i guess i'd find this mr lynn credible and if we accept that as the finding that there are there's credibility the hit the point about why the i g was wrong to say you know but i would have expected corroborating evidence on these certain points and they're not there and so in effect i'm not persuaded you actually  another word one of the main things here is the big question is why the pastor never testified or why reasons weren't given sufficient to indicate why he didn't testify and he was not that far so is your position really that once you say a person's credible that everything they say a has to be fully accepted at face value and b that it can be all by itself sufficient a credible statement means that the statement is true having a additional crop in evidence does not make it more true but it may not be sufficient and there was a need for cooperation and wasn't provided mr lynn cannot win if the guy is correct and ok under abdulai why  statement in the two thousand and six this is insufficient to put your client on notice that he had to provide some cooperation actually be that decision is not sufficient notice because the  little less credible so the that the cooperation requirement concerns the credibility and because credibility for the second decision is already established  circling back on something i want to make sure i understand it you keep saying that the credibility finding as to mr lindh with me actually says are you are you suggesting that once mr lynn was said to be credible he didn't have to come forward with any corroborating evidence regardless of what the i g may have said or not said in the first he actually submitted cooperating evidence he submitted on a second will hearing stick with maybe i should make it hypothetical assume he submitted nothing else certainly i j didn't think he submitted enough and said i gave you a blueprint the first time around you didn't come through with it but set that aside let's talk about applican who's deemed credible and testifies is your position that having been deemed credible that corroboration is unnecessary because whatever they said i good morning your honor is may please the court my name is jeffrey bernstein and i represent the attorney general of the united states the linchpin of the immigration judge's decision is that the push petitioner failed to that is necessarily in conflict with the credibility fine you've already made if i may your honor and trust me if you want me to answer this question right now i will but i was going to talk about the exhaustion issue if the court doesn't have any questions about the exhaustion issue  if to reinforce otherwise credible testimony well what's the logical how can it logically be the case that somebody comes in and says i'm a christian and i j says i believe you i find you credible if i have to make a finding i say you're credible i think credibility means different things depending on facts generally credibility means that you are presumed to have given sincere says an accurate but you believe the testimony you give is accurate i mean the primary example of this is an individual who who engages in speculation you have a  immigration asylum applicant who testifies to facts and he also speculates the immigration judge finds him generally credible ok well he's not speculating about whether he's a christian or not right we're not at this point this isn't like i'm speculating whether i might get beat up when i return to china this is him saying something as to which there's no speculation required i'm a bad guys member of the church right that's his assertion i you're credible and then says prove it well there is an inherent conflict in that well that didn't happen in this case perhaps there's an inherent conflict in the in the hypothetical that you raised but that didn't happen in this case the immigration judge certainly wanted in the first decision certainly indicated that he wasn't sure whether or not the individual was christian and required corroboration on that fact so the becomes if he is presumed to be christian based upon the positive credibility determination the question is simply not whether or not being a christian expose means that one has a well founded fear of persecution mr lynn was in essence asserting that if he was forced to return to china he would either have to  give up going to church because he didn't think he thought that the registered churches were communist and  godless or that he would have to go to china and if he was forced to go to china he would have to risk persecution by worshipping at a author of an unauthorized failed to cooperate through the pastor's testimony or an affidavit his christianity not the threat to him in china that's not true your honor they did not there was no part of the immigration  decision second decision that concluded that he was not credibly asserting he was christian the immigration judge first of all he incorporated many of the incorporated all of the reasons why corroborate in was required from the first decision and specifically in the second decision he found moom excuse me  he found that the testimony with respect to his reluctance to attend a an authorized church in china was neither was lacking in detail and says and support and foundation and as well that he did not testify with a motion or we'll look at the rely on on on that demeanor and lack of detail every year already found the man credible that he was a christian and wanted to pray at a a church of his choosing you only eat yes because the statute provides for that the statute provides that even work requiring corroboration ass's christianity but i thought i thought in fact they were that at the second go around they were still saying things like there's no authentication of your certificate or something like that i mean well what is that what is that well what does that have to do with things or if it's if it's not a demand for corroboration of something as to which he having been found credible has already stated the fact well first of all the b i a did not require him to corroborate anything they concluded that because he failed and this is the crux of the exhaustion argument because he failed to attack or contest were put in to contest the immigrations judges requirement that he corroborate that he in a sen doesn't didn't he argue there was a finding of credibility before the b i and he did but that doesn't doesn't that necessarily say i don't have to corroborate i don't i don't need corroboration i was found to be believable absolutely argument was set out the context for the image of the immigration judge's decision at the end of that paragraph they said the petitioner hasn't articulated any meaningful arguments contesting the immigration judges corroboration requirement of their own argued for the b i e that it is credible and then there's no need for any further corroboration he was found credible in his claim that he was a christian but that does not put into contest the it seems that it provides for it in the circumstances you were talking about earlier where that where a person could be perfectly credible in what they say but their knowledge or their information is insufficient to establish something that's exactly what happened here how can you say that the fact that was being demanded for corroboration was not something that was outside his specific personal knowledge i mean if you say i believe you when you tell me that how can you with any degree of logic say and now i also want you to prove it to me or see you demand corroboration of something you have accepted respectfully your honor i disagree in toto because as i've said before and as we say in our brief what was required to be the immigration judge that he when he was in china he didn't know the difference between a and authorized church in an authorized church so they gratian other piece there's another piece here that even if even if we thought there was something odd about the i'm a christian piece there are other pieces as to which corroboration could rightfully have been required and that's sufficient to hold the decision that in essence they are going to make and well the second part certainly is the argument  y it's evidence before the court it is evidence but before the court but essentially what the immigration judge was saying is provide a foundation for this evidence and the board agreed that he he was perfectly within his purview to do so but even if the certificate proved that he was baptized in that he was a christian again by the time the second decision rolled around the immigration judge didn't seem to be all that concerned with whether or not he was christian the immigration judge was again concerned with the petitioners assertion implicit assertion that he could not attend an unauthorized church because his rigid because his religious beliefs  who were statements i guess this is my question what is his demeanor have to do with anything as mr wang put it in his briefing if the question of his credibility is resolved that by talking about the mean are you resurrect credibility and that that's just not permissible since it's already said he's credible well just because the i j was not basing an adverse credibility determination  the mean or he was simply expressing the reason why he thought corroboration was necessary and it was necessary in part because the petitioner was testifying about a matter which should have been generally fraught with emotion if the petitioner what if you at which particular matter should have been fraught with emotion his assertion that if his an implicit assertion that if were forced to go to china he could not practice his religion because either he would be because you could not practice in an authorised church because it conflicted with his religious beliefs because they didn't believe in god so he would be forced to excuse me if he would be forced to the immigration judge failed to meet the second step of the abdulai analysis in the you know he did present some cooperation he presented a letter from his church letter from his uncle and his father in the letters really as the immigration judge found in the and board seem to agree didn't establish anything but the via immigration judge in the board certainly complied with how to lie the  did he give enough notice was a notice the notice was in the first number one the notice was in the first hearing where pretty much everything along said the issue was different the issue was not different the issue was that the exact same issue what was the issue the issue was whether or not he established a well founded fear persecution based upon his religion that was the issue the issue did not change and the immigration judge in his first decision although it's a little confusing it clearly indicated that he should provide person of corroboration with respect to all the matters that were implicated in the second hearing and furthermore be under abu why the immigration judge doesn't necessarily have to apprise  petition or the abdulai court noted the board's decision as m j and asserted and and summarized that there are certain there are just certain things that you expect that a petition or should expect to have corroborated and certainly in a case where the petitioner assess where the petitioners main reason that he of how to allege the well founded fear was that he could not practice china it certainly would be reasonable to expect that he would be expected to provide more than just his assertion is passionless assertion that that he didn't want to worship someplace as you know you either didn't want to worship in a government church or would worship in an unauthorized church and or on register church and x and expose himself to persecution all right mr bernstein thank you very much thank you very much you're on just your along with respect to the the mena issue i'd just like to clarify that the i just finding refers only to his knowledge about the state sanctioned charge according to mr lynch testimony he had only been at pending church for about four months before the incident took place he does not claim that he has a lot of knowledge about the difference between underground church and the state sanctioned church and in any event this is the the i just question only ask  but if if i if we understand his argument to be look even if you judges don't want to talk about the or her except what the government's saying about the christian corroboration stuff there's this other issue and that issue is the concerns fear about we're concerned fear and concern regarding where to worship as a christian when you return to china that that it was reasonable for the i j a and then turn to the say look what's the foundation for that expressed concerns should have some knowledge you should have been able to provide some corroboration for your assertion that you know if you go back you're going to be persecuted why is that wrong what's wrong with that in demolished and so they missed the lindh did provide sufficient cooperation to support his what is certain point are we are we off of the noble review and starting to talk about the