finding by the board and the immigration judge was based upon cherry picking certain facts that bolster their adverse credibility finding while ignoring certain facts that undermine that result we also believe that in this case the immigration judge was not an impartial adjudicator when she directed the government to introduce evidence in the middle of testimony to bolster their evidence once it was found that their evidence was insufficient and deficient as an example of cherry picking the board stated that the father's letter indicated that when police came to question him about his son's whereabouts he stated that he went out for work and the board said well this supports the fact that the respondent or the petitioner came here for work ignoring that the rest of the father's letter indicated that he had suffered persecution based upon his religion and just a few sentence earlier stated that he as he escape how he had gotten when and how he had gotten from china to the united states yes your honor and i believe that the reason why they found him found inconsistency there was because of his previous statement that he had made  at the border on the i two thirteen and that is exactly what i was talking about when i said that i believe that that particular document was deficient because it didn't state what language of the interview was conducted in and not only that th it was the date because on the i tunes thirteen he originally stated that he left china i believe he said in january two thousand and sixteen where he testify that he actually left china much earlier in two thousand and fifteen so that was really into existence he was and what i'm saying  question and answer we don't know what question was asked what the answer was given this is an office recitation of what he believes that the petitioner stated not exactly what he stated video that the officer also said that if he had stated that it would have in the form yes but and so he was questioned on that very issue and why isn't immigration judge permitted to credit at testimony no the immigration here can credit that testimony but what i'm saying is that these types of statements and that's why sentencing begins all should not be used to support an adverse credibility finding because it's not a transcript we're not sure exactly what the context was of the questions that were asked whether any follow up questions and perhaps did he misunderstand the question or did the misspeak like for example on page three twenty one we're looking at the actual date it says subject admitted that he entered the u s illegally on about general eleven two thousand and six at approximately sixty hours by waiting across the rio grande approximately two miles east of the double texas port of entry a place not designate as a port of entry i don't believe that the petitioner said all those things that's a recitation of certain facts that the officer believed to be true so what i'm saying is in this type of interview we're not sure exactly what he said in what context these answers were given he may have just been mistaken we don't know and that's and that's why i cited this particular case because in this case the officer is not petition must be given notice and opportunity to corroborate his claim there was no notice given by the immigration judge in this case that he must submit certain certain evidence to corroborate but not a question of a submitt united states are completely collateral to the actual claim itself what we're talking about advantage under the real i d act i believe it does matter in the sense that it is something that i believe that would be considered minor if there is a lack of corroboration for that and if there's a slight inconsistency on that that's only one minor inconsistency there was also the it was concerned about the inconsistency is i'm a timeline when he before two thousand and one even though he didn't state exactly when he started i thought he said and ninety nine he stopped at the pure factory and moved to selling vehicles at another company right and that was the company the trading company and which the letter beer factory and then he found a new job in one nine hundred ninety nine or i guess it was called the trading company i believe in the letter and then in two thousand one hundred transferred from the head company to a smaller branch is what i'm saying is his testimony and that's a minor consistency on his education because he did state that he had a junior high education but again there's no evidence of that that he had the standing to correct the household registry his father is the head of the household he's just the son there's no evidence at all that he could have gone in there and corrected that if there was a mistake on his education i said twenty eight seconds left so i'll save that for a little thank you they place the court my name is jesse lorenz and i represent the attorney general of the united states in this matter this court should decline to disturb the board's decision because record evidence fails to compel the conclusion that mr chang presented a credible claim i'd like to start by addressing a couple of things cross examination and he explained how the form was prepared what kind of translation service was used particular he testified that at that time they were using a translation service they'd call in when they needed certain language translated so any concerns with that form have been cured by the testimony of the customs and border patrol agent who was with the carriage well our argument first of all would be that there really is no need the i two and three is reliable evidence  there really is no need to have the agent testify but because he did testify we can be assured that of the way it was prepared the manner in which it was repaired how the information was entered so its concerns about you know the information being entered incorrectly are cured by the fact that this this agent testified and said you know this is how i did these things this is what he would have told me i wrote these down in my notes i kept all the files separate and then i put put it into the form after the show and he came up with a new much he didn't he did not he did not submit his notes before the immigration judge was that the for my two and three the record of the portable and indeed he testified that he remembered the interview he did he did admit that he did not remember the interview at the time because they're processing apparently four or five it either according to statement he said for the i j a or the statement before the customs and border patrol agent he either leaves in april two thousand and five or january two thousand and six now that's a that's a big time difference and it's kind of part of this court's law is that basically the longer you stay in the country after the incident of harm the last well founded your fear future persecution is so that is a that is a big difference and also there are couple things that may or may not have happened during that period i mean basically because of the inconsistency  don't know what happened between april two thousand and five and january two thousand and six according to his father's letter you know he leaves in april two thousand and five and then the police visit twice after that but maybe he's there maybe he's not we don't really know because of this so i think it does make a huge difference also under the real i d act the agency doesn't have to rely or doesn't have to rely on matters like or it doesn't have to find inconsistencies that go to the heart of the matter and here i mean we're talking about vastly different stories i mean perhaps in the officer who don't who know me well i think it does advantage his claim because he has a letter from his father saying he left in april two thousand and five if he doesn't testify that he left in april two thousand and five and his testimony is necessarily consistent with his father's letter and as i said the longer he stays in china the less you know the lower his well founded fear is that it weakens its claim that he's in china for an additional ten months also you mentioned that  in that period the police came only twice also his father's letter and claims that after he left china the police came by after he petitions of china yeah well according to his his testimony but not according to what he said to the customs and border patrol agent but according to his testimony or not as his testimony and his father's letter he left china in april two thousand and five and then the police came to his father's house twice after that i mean and that's his his way of showing continued interest in him but you still in china during that period of time that is slightly undercut and then as i said the longer he remains in the country following the major incident of harm the less likely the lower his well founded fear is also what we have to keep in consideration when he told c d p that he had left china in january two thousand and six and arrived in january two thousand and six that was contemporaneous to when that happened he's testified you know several years later before the immigration judge and at that point he needs to  share his testimony with his father's letter so we don't really have any incentive for him to lie to customs and border but then there is an incentive to lie to the immigration judge or i should say live what you know conform is testimony with the evidence that he submitted do you agree with your opposing counsel that there shouldn't be greatly lines placed on the household registration document well i would disagree with that because it is a government record that he has s in support of this claim and basically that the record on the bottom of it says that it was renewed or refreshed or whatever in april two thousand so that's pretty specific that they redid the household registry in april two thousand a renewed or it was refiled or something of that nature and it still listed him as an elementary school student now that there's any sixteen at the time he's fifteen that that's well at that time i believe he would have been seventeen or eighteen but it's still it's a government record that he has presented as truthful i mean he's presenting it in support of his own claim and it does interfere with his claim that he was graduated by that point time and had at that point time worked at two different jobs i mean it doesn't say anything about those jobs and that's he's on a second job at that point according to his own claim but you've had enough experience to know that those household registries are often used by the folks in china for purposes other than the ones we're talking about today well i can't really speak to those but in this case i mean it is inconsistent with his claim that he's been graduated and working for a force like this but his father prepared and and who knows what the motivation or how much care was actually taken to verify or conform that to the realities at the time well your honor i just i don't know in this case i don't have any access to that information what happened what his father did what his father did not do all the more reason not to rely on that document well but he submitted in support of his own claim that it is important to remember that it's his burden of proof and we're talking about a totality of the circumstances test this is one more thing that kind of goes into all the totality of the inconsistency i'm trying to understand the inconsistency before most of it in two thousand and four going to form in the form was prepared or  that well i'm just showing the same with inconsistency as well your honor the inconsistency is that he's he's saying that he graduated middle school and july nine hundred ninety eight and has worked at two jobs since july of ninety ninety eight once at a beer factory i think he said he graduated from middle school and then started working at a beer factory but that's all that's all i recollect from that whether it was illegal or not really doesn't go to his claim anyways because he's like i want to explain why they might not have skepticism he would have been fifteen not working at actory yes i did he respond to that not really and i maybe that's why i judged concern comes in that but that i did express concern and thought that it was implausible that he'd be working at the beer factory at that time but i don't remember that being explored in great length only that you know his testimony that he was working was inconsistent with his household registry and the immigration judges at least that he should be working there at the time honour's i can see that i'm over my time if i may summarize please i think you're done and so i think you're done i'm done no more time ok thank you there is just as the point the eye to thirteen ad ad on itself was deficient it did not contain the language that was used during the interview it was only when the i g directed government counsel to submit the i eight to six that we found out what language was