that as standing for the proposition that because this document was not obscene until after he was in removal because the document has been altered there is an attempt being made to perpetrate a fraud upon the co to the date in order to avoid a find from a change from fifteen to twenty five but  motive is the only motive for the for the mistreatment that a petition would suffer that would only preclude a finding that it's persecution was not based on one of the five year there is there's more than there is also a political motive along with a nonpolitical motive and as such the core should not preclude a find in the immigration question not preclude a finding that is persecution was based on at least one actually cares it's something it's either he participated in a bombing or he was the physicians testimony after after after considerable prodding he initially testified i was arrested because i was being accused of being a militant and i was also arrested as well because please the court i'm mark walters representing the attorney general john ashcroft i believe this case presented to the court solely the credibility as showing the reason for that is that while the immigration judge did have an alternative finding on the merits the board's decision adopts the immigration judges credibility finding and goes no further so i believe that if you were to disagree with the board's decision and find that there was not substantial evidence to merits but they're really only four pages that deal with the actual credibility claim the first thing they argue is that their record doesn't show that the i j a ever in monish to mr obama for testifying as that from a script obama says in the brief he has no idea what the i j a is talking about but in fact near the very beginning of the hearing on page one twenty five of the record the i j a says i'm going to ask you to answer the questions that your attorney ask you when you just tell me whatever you feel like telling me it sounds like you've memorized something so he was on know this early on that the immigration judge had a problem with long rambling answers to a specific question that went beyond the question the record reveals according to mr le bon a few if any objections by the ins attorney that mr le bon his answers were not responsive or that he was rambling but to take just a few on page two eleven serve listen to my questioner we're going to be here a very long time on page two twelve you're not answering my question on page two seventeen so you're not answering my question right now this but i don't think that's really true and there's this i don't think that's really true a lot of the wedlock well i thought that was a problem but i guess that really means in marriages and on i mean she goes through all these possible grounds for an adverse credibility finding and then she kind of holds back on ho never seen one quite like that well i think the only ones that she pulled back on were identity and religion she expressed serious reservations in the middle of her opinion about his identity and about his religion in particular she was concerned that he used a different last name than the relatives who submitted documentary evidence but in the end she alternately agreed that using the cast name which the rest of the family didn't use was an explanation that she would accept and so his identity was established as to religion she was concerned somewhat by the fact that he did not have a good answer for the question about the six religious position on ca and that seem to conflict with what the immigration judge thought was the position of the stake really than on such things but in the end she after expressing that she did go back and say that based upon photographs and other evidence i do about it i think as well mr obama says he can hardly be held responsible for what the doctors reports say but he sponsored those reports not the government he says that the latest letter from his father may not have been presented to the immigration court because it was not given to his counsel so he's speculating about his action and that of his counsel and then criticizing the i j a for speculating that the letter may not have been helpful to m letter said two things one of which was favorable to them and one which was unfavorable he said the letter said the police are still coming to my house but he also said the letter said his father said things are mostly ok now and that reflect s well i won't go outside the record he said things are mostly ok now so we don't know what the record said because he didn't present it but part of a credibility determination is not just where the conflicts lie and how serious they are counsel and i don't think that explanation as i said it wasn't before the immigration judge but as with explanations that work doesn't ring true the specifics  guess credibility findings included involved a specific finding that he appeared to have memorized testimony until he was stopped from giving long narratives and required to do a question or an answer she pointed out that when he did that on examination the ins trial attorneys questions were not responded to or a rambling response came across on many key issues she pointed out that there's another affidavit of the father that was attached to an en that they confusion by the witness she points out that the father's affidavit the first affidavit i'm sorry the first affidavit contradicts the testimony he gave that he lost interest in the dairy business after he was arrested the first time on is on route to the derrick to the customers that he was serving his explanation for that is as telling as the fact that his father's affidavit conflicts with his testimony his explanation was deemed on satisfactory and and december of ninety six the dairy farm was sold by him all of these in consistencies are against the backdrop of a country report that talks about many seek asylum applications a pack appearing to be fabrications now that part of the world undoubtedly involves a very difficult situation for sikhs and people living in that region and there are legitimate claims that come out of that area but a number of people are trying to piggyback onto that situation and question the legitimate claims through and the court should really just heard of the immigration judges finding here supported amply by substantial evidence that this is one of the cases that falls on the issue his religion was not an issue the fact that he was a dairy farmer was not an issue the fact that it is with the dairy farm eventually closed down was ultimately found to be not an issue the fact that he written that he ha that he received envelopes i believe i believe one in february and two in may and he kept repeating that answer i believe