honor the opponent miss wang came to this country to escape communist oppression in china while in the united states miss wang became a follower of jesus christ and sought to share the gospel message with her family back in  china this message quickly spread to others in her family who also converted in her native native village in the free jump problems her family and other members of the village began home worship services which are prohibited and severely persecuted in china you know that i thought that they had a policy now that you could get a permit and have homes refuse your honor that's correct in extremely limited circumstances it has to be officially state sanctioned protestant worship through the communist party in some cases it can take years to get that the way it is yes and getting a liquor license here can take a long time and probably even worse than  other and the one of the ways we can establish sense is by looking at the record here because based on the activities that were happening in her native china and the supposedly subversive activity of sending bibles and other materials back to her family miss wang here was expressly named by communist officials and threatened by arrests threatened with arrest her family home was searched and ransacked her mother was severely beaten she was hospitalized arrested jailed and fined and the village was told in a public notice posted that if mrs wang ever returned to china she would be quote duly punished and this is not based on this it was all for sending the religious materials to her mother in law correct your honor and this is not based on mis wang's oral testimony this is in the record this is the in fact records full of primary documentary evidence that was not refuted by the government and which was entered into the record without objection but the i'll tell you found or not creditable right correct and what's your answer in that well at that that's why we're here today your honor i think that just based on the documentary evidence alone miss one clearly meets the proud of vs sessions test that she has a well founded fear of persecution that subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable but here the immigration judge and subsequently the board of immigration appeals they essentially ignored the substantial documented evidence which was never objected to and instead focused on what essentially boils down to a one day discrepancy in miss wang's oral testimony about what was in those documents so that sort of puts the cart before the horse and i would submit that that was a an unfair determination clearly erroneous and goes against the substantial weight of evidence presented during the hearings so what do you say to the fact that in finding adverse credibility the i j a focus not only on the discrepancy in the date but on her shifting story as she's confronted with the evidence so if i can correct me if i'm wrong if i mistake the police identify this one as the source of the material so she said that it a couple of times then she was confronted with the document she gave a different date and then she was confronted the inconsistency again and then she said oh well i don't remember no one is focused on that i chase discussion of the shifting story as she's confronted with the evidence and also focus on the ids discussion of the lack of corroboration and tell us why that doesn't provide the substantial evidence to support the adverse credibility finding certainly her on her first regarding the so called shifting story here for one thing miss one was not confronted with the actual document that another issue that i can mention later that she was the the government the immigration judge acted actually precluded her from looking at the documents while she was testifying and the exchange that you mention which really forms the crux of the  basis of this entire asylum denial is based on one very brief exchange it wasn't like this was a theme running throughout the testimony this was a situation where the documents clearly lay out the  story in the timeline the these are primary documents they were created by ms wang they come directly from the official sources in china and she was having trouble remembering exactly what date certain things occurred and if you look at the transcript of the in the record here i think it becomes fairly clear that this is not a situation where she's just trying to kind of move back and forth on on her story or shift and she's she's legitimately saying i don't remember exactly the date that these things happened they are spelled out in the documents and that's a completely accurate statement and in fact that's that's right in line with the long line of cases from this court cited in our opening brief that the court cannot focus on trivial inconsistency is in testimony particularly usually when the court mentions what constitutes a trivial inconsistency of something precisely like you know there's there's a date that's wrong or there might be a difference in address i think we can pay attention to trivial inconsistency is if they seriously bear on credibility i believe that a company says i remember absolutely every detail of the beating they gave me they were so short fella and there was a big fat fella and they're wearing green shirts and i had a blue shirt and maybe the colors wrong so that's trivial but he said he remembered every detail so i don't know why the trivial details would determine it's of that's a good analogy your honor and i think in that situation that would be a little closer to the line of if someone is testifying under oath that they absolutely remember every detail of this occurrence but here we don't have that here in fact we have the opposite we have missed when testifying that she's terrified at this hearing she's confused there was translation issues and more importantly she specifically says i don't remember the exact date but i know that this is the sequence in which it happened and her testimony i think the most important fact is that corroborated by the documents themselves the document defaulted her from the lack of declaration from her mother in law and despite the fact that the father in law had helped to supply additional documentation to support her claim to want to briefly tell us that yes your honor there is so there's a long line of cases even post real id act cases from this circuit that say when really two points i'd like to dress first is when corroborating evidence is presented there cannot be a requirement from the immigration judge that additional corroborating evidence be included here not only do the documents the public notices the statement from her brother from china the testimony from her church colleagues here in america those all lend to her her testimony so for the judge to then require an additional measure in order to some house salvage or in tyler and her entire asylum application was error you wan good morning your honour's may please the court you know you sit for the attorney general counsel help me on something that's bothering me in this case if i've got the facts right and educate me if i don't at all the bad stuff that happened it's not the petitioner talking about things that happened to her it's the petitioner talking about things that her mother in law told her happened to the mother in law is that right yes that's correct or on now the errors are the inconsistency seen her testimony are about her recounting in her testimony to the i j a about what her mother in law said about things that happened to the mother to whatever my mother in law said to me about things and her life happened this time or that time or april or july with mistress x or mr y or misty  might even go in one ear and go out the other in some circumstances i just remember clearly some things that happened that involved me but here there's nothing that involves the petitioner it all involves her mother in law and the petitioner wasn't there so it's all about her memory of precisely what they saw her mother in law told her on the phone i think it was on the phone about things that happened to the mother in law why would anyone be entirely accurate or are consistent about that oh your honor i think that it's distinguishable from the experience of talking to a family member about just random events or a dinner party or whatever i may have you this was a circumstance in which her mother in law was going to be significant i mean gosh if my father in law said your mother in law went to the hospital tuesday fortunately it was nothing serious they discharged  still mix it up with wednesday it isn't that i don't think that's just me i think it's people remembering details of what other people said as opposed to remembering details of what happened to them i understand that your hon i think it's important to frame this in the fact that this is an asylum claim by an individual and it's their burden of proof to status or claim and so they are the ones who need to marshal the evidence and the facts in a consistent manner and presented to the agency in order to have the privilege of asylum in this country so the fact that she made that we might talk about the fact that some people we might not remember specific details the key here is that it's the immigration judge who is the fact finder here and who is  position to address the credibility of the claim and while i understand your examples of i don't want my daughter in law pays a lot of attention to what i say to her ear and i would assume that in situations where there is a purportedly grave instance of something that resulted in someone being arrested detained and abused you know you would remember that in a different sort of more specific way there are two levels of memory here we're depending on the mother in law to be consistent in what she says to her daughter in law and we're also talking about the ability of the daughter in law to remember consistently and accurately what her mother in law told her on the phone is that right well the think that the focus more is on what the petitioner had testified to what she was presenting in terms of when she was presenting her claim to me remember her own testimony remember and or just remembering what was told to her which she was relaying to the court and her inability to provide testimony that was consistent i mean its entire claim is predicated on what happened to her mother in law it was all these were events in july of two thousand and nine is that correct yes your honor ok now the testimony before the i j a was in two thousand and twelve yes your honor so she's trying to recall water mother in law is that over two years before and these dates are you familiar with the ninth circuit case of ran arianne ran the holder yes your honor ok that was a two thousand and eleven decision when it was also a case involving a native in his written thing he says it was three days after he was detained and in court he says no it was the second day and this was something that happened to him and yet the court said look that's too trivial a discrepancy and here as judge platteville pointed this and how many days later she revealed the name of her daughter in law but i think your honor the key here is that there is a single catalyzing incident here with what happened to her mother in law that it's there is only one claim the claim is based on that and the fact that she can provide credible straight testimony between the link to the central piece of evidence which is a public notice that alleges to identify her to the pub as someone who is a behind the scenes plot or if she's unable to provide testimony consistent with that that understandably for the agency kasa doubt on her credibility it was earned quite a challenge to the document itself which was i think they did july six they do the challenges pretty good was based on the fact that she was her testimony was  a genuine mention was shifting on the issue well as to whether the mother all gave up her name three days after she was arrested or you know was that just a mis remembering of the dates or her mother and all the stake and we thought it was three days later maybe it was the very next day which whether that inconsistency really matters or whether it's so trivial that it puts this within the scenario like in russia how do you respond to that but i would first focus on the fact that  the court doesn't have to agree how the agency ended it in terms of the weight of the weight given to this inconsistency this is a substantial evidence review so it has to show the record compels this and taken that inconsistency taken with the fact that  there was a crowd reading evidence not presented reasonably available cropping evidence that could have been presented from the mother in law to bolster her claim this is someone that she was still in contact with this is someone whose spouse had provided documentary evidence to support her claim the fact that this that this document was the a statement from her didn't come in to help bolster her the claim itself further casts doubt i think taking the inconsistency alone is not what the board of the agency did here they focus they noted the inconsistency in observed the absence the inconsistency along with the absence of any evidence any statement from the central figure of her claim that being the mother in law did actually give notice that corroborating evidence declaration from the mother in law on this one would have been helpful during the testimony the immigration judge expressly asked why don't you have a document from a statement from your mother in law she is someone who central to this case petitions explanation was that her mother in law was an educated and then challenge on that i asked why not have someone write a statement for her she indicated she or her mother and i would want to implicate someone else however that also rang hollow because her husband is the one that ultimately provided all of this evidence for the petitioners claim so the petitioner was provided an opportunity she was made but it was made very clear to her that there were some issues and concerns us to the veracity of her claim that there was some evidence that would have helped her and with us to explain why this evidence wasn't presented and her explanation is an agency that gratian judge reasonably rejected as as he was entitled to do so based on finding them not persuasive you know under the real i d act as i understand it asylum outlands testimony quote may be sufficient to sustain applicant's burden without corroboration so really all this goes back to whether she's credible or not in their testimony right yes so the moment when the agency understood but was under the impression that there might be some credibility issues that's where the corporation was kind of pieced in to see if there was something else that could have been both sort of a claim and i think this case may therefore hinge on whether we think that the discrepancy in her testimony is too trivial to have been a basis for an adverse credibility determination or n forged oh no i am saying that the agency did not expressly indicate challenge the authenticity or anything that the way was addressed by the by the immigration judge was the fact that her testimony was inconsistent with it and that it may have been fabricated based on kind of considering the tell of the circumstances with her testimony when you're considering that document did the bia hear the i g say that they were not persuaded that that was a genuine document that genuinely said on behalf of the questions thank you very much thank you very much your  honour's thank your honour's very briefly in rebuttal the documents at issue here that your honour's rightly picked up on in your questioning they are the central focus of this case and those documents are not just about the mother in law these are unrefuted admitted well to actually says and i'm looking at the r forty five the court concludes from the unresolved inconsistency in this case which the court considers to be central to respondents credibility that finding to jump to that conclusion is a pure conjecture based on the the timeline here if we look at so essentially what the immigration judge did was say here we have all this evidence in the record there's been no objection made to it there's been no evidentiary challenge to its authenticity there's public seals from the village in china there's photographs of it posted in china there's official translators certificates saying yes this is an official document that i translated and rather than look at any of that  or the merits of these documents themselves the primary source documents what the immigration judge did here was say well you can't remember what the date was on one of these documents that's never been objected to from two years ago and as for that that was the only basis is that one sentence that your honor alluded to where he says well there's been an adverse credibility finding therefore maybe these documents were fabricated but there's no independent basis for that to  jump to that conclusion miswiring never she's not the creator of these documents and never claimed to be so for the immigration judge to ask well what is one of the dates on these documents for her to get that one date wrong by one day and then to just throw out the evidence altogether i think it is clear there if anything it should be the other way around the documents should be analyzed to then give way to determine whether or not ms wang is credible rather than than than the other way around