counsel i hope you understand how unacceptable it is for you to hold up the entire court and your opposing counsel has come from washington d c while you're late it's very and acceptable to be late not to be present in the courtroom when it's time for your argument to take place it is the nature of your very important point that you couldn't make your ninth circuit appearance  his first born his first child was born in the year two thousand five hundred daughter the wife had a c section six months after the first child was born she was worst have an i u d inserted in her to make sure she doesn't get pregnant again because the law in china says that if you have a female the next child can be born only four years after despite the fact that i knew there was inserted in her in two thousand and six a year later they discovered that she was re was a past persecution are not the fact that he can remember the exact details of what happened when he when he first arrived and in america and what happened at the houston airport he arrived we know he is here so he had no reason to be dishonest about that the key issue is what happened with his wife did an abortion actually take place so we feel that it's unreasonable for the judge to focus on that the fact that how come you couldn't remember  memory back exactly what happened and the court found that it's unreasonable to hold that against somebody especially when they're fleeing persecution and they've been through some kind of you know trauma and they get here so they hold that against the petitioners is unreasonable is unfair i think that we did a pretty good job of arguing that and there are the cases that we've cited that the judge the judge was basically like fishing for reasons and it really doesn't go to the heart of the claim and the most i mean there  unfair for the judge to be so critical about the fact that he you know he would he didn't do a better job as to describing what the the wife's medical condition was he did there was an issue how come we didn't present any medical documents and the about that and that does not go to the heart of the claim and the other issue is that he felt that she would that how is it possible that you could register your son's birth but you're hiding from the authorities well he explained that they had to register the child's birth first of all they paid  feeling well well if if why if somebody is not feeling well what are they going to do i mean if if she was pregnant even being ok she's not going to have a child at home is she going to have to go see go to the hospital i mean she's a mother of two if you're not feeling well  the fact that chen had i think there were two simply unbelievable and highly questionable because chen didn't know about his circumstances are coming he didn't know anything about the quote snakehead why would he know anything about that if actually we were what's the answer to that why would why would somebody know a lot about the smuggler right wasn't there ever is in the record that the smugglers controlled everything that he did he didn't know the language he didn't know anything about it so would that be one reason that may be right he seems confusing an inconsistent absolutely i absolutely believe that exactly was the case on top of that he was being smuggled from peru and there is evidence that he was in custody for like twenty days in peru trying to get here and it's nerve wracking journey the restraining and of course he didn't remember exactly what happened in a foreign country that he doesn't even speak word of english so absolutely i mean it just doesn't go to the heart of the claim like i said there's so many more important issues that the judge could have been critical about but he wasn't he focused on things after the person you know the call you know the issues that pertains to the persecution so i mean the destroyer had absolutely no reason to lie about what happened at the airport wasn't going to change anything you know and more importantly about the about the kind of logical issues you know whether he know exactly first of all he was very clear on exactly what happened but that doesn't change the fact that there was a force good morning your honour's and may it please the court rebecca not asked for the united states attorney general like to remind the court that immigration judges adverse credibility findings particularly after the real idea act are reviewed under the extremely differential substantial evidence standard of review because the immigration judge is in the best position to assess the witness inscrutability because he's actually observing the testimony and here is substantial evidence supports immigration judges adverse credibility fighting for for three reasons all start with petitioners testimony regarding going into hiding following the birth of his second child he claimed that the family planning  office required his wife to be sterilized and she didn't want to be sterilized so they went into hiding and during that time period while he was allegedly in hiding he admitted that he registered her son with either the police station or the healthier or both i think the record suggests both and the fact that he was in hiding is excuse me the fact that he was willing to register his son at the health bureau or at the police station contradicts his testimony that he was afraid and in hiding you know petitioner argues that there is no pending action between the the house bureau and the family planning office but petitioners own testimony suggests that there is a connection he wife is in pain even though he was hugging he put there it was a head of his fear of being caught i would point out that at this stage both him and his wife were afraid because the family planning office said you have to pay a fine in your wife has to be sterilized so i think they're hiding in consensus inconsistency is based on two points one hospital to check to see if she was pregnant again in violation of the family planning office policy and i would point out it's the ninth circuit case that had a similar set of facts and in that case petition he had numerous encounters with the local police and the court rejected the idea that there was no connection between the t v and the local police because the petitioners own testimony was that he went to the local police to help  his friend be released from jail who had been arrested by the t v so it's a very analogous case where the petitioners sometimes when you hear term saying that i had to pay the fine in order to register my son shows that there is that connection it wasn't true that if he didn't register his son the sum would not be eligible for any government benefits benefits of any kind i believe that's correct  an explanation why he acted in a particular way does that show that he's inconsistent i mean he's hiding but his son needed to get benefits inconsistency in hiding or sues me why did you feel comfortable registering your son if you were in hiding he didn't provide the explanation that your honor has provided that i had all of you there's all these important benefits attached i think that the record probably has evidence of that but was there some indication that he might not have been fully aware of what he was being asked there is no allegation in petitioner doesn't raise that sort of charge this issue about hiding is it's inconsistent like so the i j a was incorrect in its finding so originally the petitioner said that he registered his son in december two thousand and six and he went into hiding in february two thousand and seven but later he admitted that it was in february two thousand and seven and the reason why that date is sort of very specific is a birth certificate of the second son is in the record and it was registered on feb in feb record i'm at page sixty five now the the judge explain the trends testimony about how he entered the united states to the houston airport was not quote reasonable and then he goes on to say that his story of his arrival was  evasive here's my understanding and i like the way you're minded us about the standard of review because that doesn't mean that we only look at the evidence that supports the decision don't we also look the immigration inspector took him to the little room when he first entered the airport and then later he said when i first got to the airport a snake had at one eighty five the snake had told me to wait in the bathroom until the line died out and then he found himself in a room it was just a very confusing muddled account ever happened so this is the issue i have with that which is that i think even relate to his claim of pas well i think that the way that i see it is that the real i d act was intended to provide immigration judge years the judges as they try years of fact more leeway in weighing on many different factors and what was going on because he planned it on the smugglers throughout the entire process he didn't speak english seems to me that this  with chance other testimony that the smugglers entirely controlled his immigration process without his input i do believe some of those explanations have been provided by what the process was knows other countries and it undermines his claim that these factors that your honor mentioned prevented him from knowing you know providing at least some sort of coherent account of how he china family policies and and the things i find remarkable is that the i j a didn't cite a single family policy case which we have a long lie from china it when it discussed past persecution it it's cited to gulu and grow which were both the persecution on account of religious the last case they have nez we learned that maybe china's official position is changing and that across the more urban areas in china they're relaxing those families sterilization but they're still being enforced in some rural areas and i'm finding this record doesn't even tell me like where this person was what you know what the relationship with the  but i'm i think one is that the merits findings now before the court in two i think that your question about whether in fact it immigration judges credibility finding i think that the record shows that the immigration judge understood the basis of t claim he gave it entire chen's entire silent application was predicated on his testimony that his wife's medical problems prevented her from being sterilise in his place in that's why they were coming after him right now under the you understand the claim clearly and i think this immigration judge did as well he pointed out that that was a his testimony that was vague and evasive about the wife's medical problems was material to his claim and we really turned on that fact that he didn't provide many details on specifically why those problems prevented her from being sterilized when he admitted she would have complied with the order had  this case is an excellent case because the evidence is clear that the petitioner did violate the one child policy he had two children a girl and a boy born about a year and a half apart so there is a very very strong case with very strong facts about  abortion a first i u d two c sections that cause a kind of lodge and this woman was scarred from what happened and the petitioner had good cause to run away and in fact is a very very likely that he ran away from there for the right reasons and the judge was focusing on fact th that he was not credible but we feel that the evidence is not strong i'm sorry we feel that the judge erred in finding the petitioner my credibility we ask that you are reversed that decision and then you ask the board to now consider whether there was cause persecution in this case and if your future