s adverse credibility finding in this case was not supported by substantial evidence under this court's pre real id act standard and therefore it must be reversed under that standard an adverse credibility determination has to be supported by at least one actual significant inconsistency that goes to the heart of the asylum applicants claim well it's true that testimony of that is implausible because contradicted by other evidence in the record can also support an adverse credibility finding such a family cannot be supported merely by the agency's speculation or conjecture that testimony is implausible without such a contradiction to point to here the board relied on just two issues one a perceived implausibility in the testimony of ms corps witness her friend from india miss million's the second a perceived inconsistency which was simply a mistake in miss corps direct testimony that she then did not repeat and corrected each time that it was brought up neither of those are the kind of significant  actual inconsistency that is enough to support an adverse credibility finding before the real id act what's the difference between an inconsistency  well this court has i would direct the court's attention for example to the wren case and it's actually not cited in the briefs and its post real id case and i think for that reason is  perhaps even more helpful because even under that more exacting standard the court talks about the kind of innocent mistake especially where it's momentary not repeated and corrected without prompting by the witness  and says that's the kind of thing that is an innocent mistake even on an issue that is important to the claim here with respect to that mistake and just to be clear this is  at page eight zero five eight zero six administrative record it's the second issue relied upon by the board it's after misc or has already gone through the incidence of past persecution and what your claim is based on her lawyer at the end of direct is just asking a few final questions he asks her and which which faction of the akali doll party did you belong to she says battlegroup he then asks her and that's the mistake the evidence from her later testimony and corroborating documents and letters is that she was a member of the of the man group of the akali dal political party i think what suggested this really was just a slip of the tongue as she active in and was really it seems from the record the group that really was the focus of her political activities she talked about that group for a bit and why she joined it and then her lawyer asks her own one what about  and she says oh we you know we believe this we believe that so i think even moments later it seems like she's not identifying herself with the bottom group even though she's just said that which i think suggests that it was just a momentary slip of the town i think more importantly there really is the fact that this doesn't go this mistake minor inconsistency or whatever you want to college doesn't go to the heart of her claim because her claim isn't about her participation in the man party the man party was not mentioned in her asylum application there is a point in the statement attached to this our application in this is that page two thousand and three of the record where it looks like at the end of why what's the you know what's your persecution on account of what it says and religion a membership in the college dial and that's crossed out it's not mentioned man party isn't mentioned anywhere isn't mentioned as identified with herself in the application she doesn't mention the man party anywhere she doesn't bring it up herself anywhere in her testimony neither of the incidents in which she was arrested and beaten by police resulted from any kind of man party activity there are a lot of cases from the punjab that really center around the mount the man party in this court says has seen them i know but this is not one of those cases but if you're confused about  supports that that goal but none of the things that she that resulted in her past persecution had to do with money party activities the first time the police after she was kidnapped found fliers that party or political beliefs colace whatever that and she's confused about her political affiliation or hers or looks pretty inconsistent about that then isn't that sort of just the sort of thing that we judge expressing inconsistent political beliefs basically has reason to doubt her testimony i don't think it's true that she has expressed inconsistent political beliefs i think that that's something that i think it seems like and one moment she said the wrong thing and that's what she explains later and that's why i do think there's been case six forty eight f third one zero seven nine is also relevant here even if the court were to think that it you know is does go towards the heart of her cleaning up the board and conclude that she didn't know much about the political situation it's difficult to believe that she was actually only a political act of the subject to persecution is an couldn't understand the scituate didn't understand that the the what the party stood for and that that was in her confusion seems to indicate some confusion about that well i don't think i don't think that's what the boards i don't think that's what the board says  its decision and i j when testimony turns towards really getting into the nitty gritty of politics that i don't really cut it off and so i don't think that is the i don't think that's the basis of the decision below i don't think it can be upheld on that basis  and to save time and i just want to really briefly refer to the other issue which is the supposed implausibility of witnesses testimony as one of the brief it's not actually inconsistent for one person to not remember something in another person  speculating that people in a small and small villages in india would know each other's extended families and that's just not the kind of thing that this court case law allows the agency to speculate about thank you because it's worth my time thank you may please the court takaka behalf of the attorney general the course is not a petition for review because mr carr voted credibly testify regarding matters they go to the heart of her claim her friend from india ms mean us testified on her behalf was unaware of some of the critical details  form the bases why ms carr fled india claiming persecution in addition she provided shifting testimony on three or four separate occasions about which fashion the political party in india to which she belonged both of these matters go to the to the heart of her claim as the agency f third pinpoint size ten fifty eight but in that case there were two petitioners who offered conflicting testimony then a witness who also testified on their behalf as well and there was conflicting testimony between the witness saying i never petitioned for the petitions to be released from prison and the petition themselves because they've been saying that they did and of course i said all of you i get that but that's a contradiction here it's the lack of knowledge of a witness that's being used as contradictory testimony that's a that's a different well perhaps there is it here that the agency determined that it was just simply not believable that ms min has given her relationship with mr karr's family both in india and the united states she also visited miss carr a few days after she was released from hospital after being detained visited her saw her injuries talked about what happened to her but yet was unaware of the critical detail of miss karr's uncle who was with her when she was detained he died from his injuries a few days after he was released from detention as well so they just determined there was simply not believable that mrs covered know all of the all those details about her ms mean us we know all the details of what happened be unaware of that critical detail forming the basis for her persecution crime so what we have with regard to that issue is a lack of corroboration by this particular witness thought should be in a position to know but we also look at the fact that there were other pieces of evidence presented that would have corroborated her claim regarding her uncle the affidavit from mr singh that her uncle had died from torture for example the death certificate i'm not sure i'm following the court's question on that your honor well the i g basically faulted her for presenting a witness that failed to corroborate her claim this right but in the sort of saying that i am very close to this family i should be aware of what happened then we live in neighboring villages we visit all the time i'm friends with her and then when they came to the united states both misc our ms me haas are here ms mean us and she met with with mr frequently and then now after the about every one to two months after the move she was she described miss carr as my friend sister which means that she is sort of like my sister so she was tested on her behalf trying to establish this closeness of a relationship to  i don't believe as my posing counsel characterized it was a slip of the tongue miss carr first state on direct examination that she belonged to the banal faction on cross examination she changed her answer to the man faction and then when she was confirmed with evidence of those parties oppose one another so that they were the same then the evidence came out they actually oppose and then she changed her answer yet again to say oh actually my father my brother were members of that not me and so the court pointed out the fact that she was confuse about which political activity that she was supporting does go to the heart of her claim and she offered shifting testimony about what her political beliefs actually were and then when she was asked to explain her inconsistency she never provided an answer to that so again i think that that piece of her testimony are opposing factions throughout the areas including in her village where there was a an affidavit that she was shown during her testimony in one thousand nine hundred two to ninety four in the record where an individual who is a leader of the man faction to which she finally settled upon saying she she was a member of who criticizes the dog government saying that it was not preventing the genocide against sikhs and so i think there's that evidence there  goes to show the factions are separate from one another and also i think ms carr's her she felt the need to to change different parties to try to make her to bolster her claim i think shows that they are separate factions as well that that particular group doesn't is not affiliated with either faction right well the i don't know if it's related either particular faction i will i will point out regarding the argument that it's  her client is basing basically her involvement with the student group and the record aside from the state department part really doesn't talk about the political affiliation group being associate with one party or the other  should have known more about what was going on politically but but the board didn't say that no the board and i said it was just relied on inconsistency that didn't relate to her  first that i don't think it's fair to characterize her explanations as shifting or trying to shifting which party should belong to she gave three explanations first that saying that as to why she might have made this mistake first you know oh they're sometimes they join together sometimes they're separate and my my uncle my father had belonged to battle so it was in my family and then they say just i i made a mistake and i would point the court two pages nineteen one thousand and one nine hundred twenty one of the record it's a danish immigration service report that talks about the akali dal i think the fact that we've been talking about it just as a colleague doll here without specifying always between the two  mistaken happen at those pages in that danish report it talks about shifting alliances between the factions how it's one political party with different factions and that all of the leading factions including the two of these that are at issue supported the boycott of the february one thousand nine hundred two elections and which she was involved in that's the boycott mentioned in those flyers and so they did sometimes take the same positions on issues that would have been relevant to her and her family thank you thank you council acacias argued will be submitted for decision