half an hour good ok this is an immigration case in the silent case to be precise the immigration judge denied all forms of relief based upon an adverse credibility determination i submit that the average credibility determination is flawed and that the case needs to be remanded to conduct several inquiries in the first instance first the immigration judge and the instant matter denied the case based upon the petitioners recitation of certain muggings that she endured in indonesia she had taken various forms of public transportation in the immigration judge found in the instant matter that she was hit from behind and that it was either impossible or not credible her recitation that she had seen the view are not supported but at least one is that is the question whether she reported the nine hundred ninety four robbery to the police page seventy or seventy one she says no she didn't report any of the incidents and then on page one hundred thirteen she says yes she did report the ninety four robbery so there's at least one clear actual inconsistency in the testimony and that was one of the things that g relied on so here's my question to you if most of the reasons are not supported but one or two of them are what do we do under our standard of review well that i have two and a two part answer to that first apparent inconsistency i'm referring to page seventy seventy of the transcript of the petitioners counsel asked petitioner specifically at the hearing have you or any relative or friend at any time made any police report of any incident while you were living in indonesia to the best of your knowledge what do you mean with the report she asks the judge interjects at this point and changes the question judge changes the question to ok with regard to any big bad things that happened to you in indonesia  not to your family not to any relatives to you any harassment or any acts of violence or attempted violence the question is did you or anyone close to report any of these incidents to the police in indonesia the one nine hundred ninety four robbery pertain to an incident that happened there is no actual inconsistency close review of the chronology of the transcript if you would have answered the first question i would agree your honor but she didn't that question was taken away by the judge and a new question was asked so you interpret the material i'm seventy and the fact that these incidents which allegedly support a persecution finding assuming there is credibility all occurred prior to her first trip to the united states she stays here for a few weeks goes back makes a second trip back to the united states and only after that is she decided that oh by the way she has been persecuted  incredible to me as i read this record what's your response well my response is twofold again first return trips that the first couple of trips that you made to the united states were very short in duration the first of which was at a point basically and in good faith because she didn't know yes she was afraid and as a matter of fact after her first return she suffered another encounter which is where eight to ten men approached her car climbed on it started banging her windows cracked the windows and  demanding money this is the situation where she says it was an act of persecution was what i was rattling and i'm leaning more towards this court's law in salem along where the court found that indonesians are particularly chinese christian indonesians are pretty disfavored group she sticks out like a sore thumb back in her country your honor it's it's she walks down the street ninety seven percent of the rest of the population looks different than her and i believe the mere fact that somebody is ethnic chinese christian is not enough you have to have past instances of harm or violence now what i'm submitting is that based on this record if she is found to be credible if the ids reasons are rejected the court really the underlying court really hasn't had an opportunity to look at that since they all came out first or after this was briefed to the board secondly the judge's decision upon close review is really based upon adverse credibility and if that's he didn't enter an explicit well founded fear determination and explicit past persecution he says i frankly don't believe her and there's nothing here credible supporting this i believe the case should be remanded back for that to terminate where there is some rule i think our case is frankly or intention to say the least there is some law the suggest that if we usually conclusion that the testimony was credible the other was reject the adverse credibility determination then we can make a determination on the merits by taking everything she said in her favor the case was modeled it best on that i believe if in keeping with the spirit of interest there isn't enough here in my opinion for the court to address that in the first instance it wasn't address efficiently below i believe the crux of the entire case rests upon credibility as far as this court is concerned i believe the board and the immigration judge should have an opportunity and you know to basically to trust you're down to about tw coming and going that i discussed with opposing counsel i i haven't come across a published opinion on this yet but to what extent can the a rely on the fact that someone has been back to the country twice since the original alleged persecution i thought there was a published decision on that and i thought it was we moved our brief i think that's clear i think that's very compelling evidence that she doesn't have a well founded fear of persecution in indonesia if she's if she's come here and said she didn't know anybody and therefore she will back to the same situation where she said she was too i have found you know case too to find that the fact that somebody has returned affects your credibility i believe that that this court's jurisprudence refers more specifically to after somebody has been found credible or not that that determination goes to eligibility for asylum that i can actually take away from somebody's subjective fear but the fact that somebody returned after suffering persecution has happened there's many cases  case focused on something a little bit different but that the petitioner had made repeated trips back to mexico to kind of gather money in an attempt to to leave now just right there that's something that he had a reason to go back in this circumstance i understand that the petitioner's case is a little bit different she came to visit and she returned but at the end of the day the fact that she came and left really doesn't take away from from her feet from the fact of whether she's telling the truth or not as as this court  stated in stable and in long these types of behaviors are very common in indonesia happens to many people and there are many people that travel in and out of the country now i understand how this can go to our subjective fear but as to credibility which i believe is the only issue before court no thank you counsel thank you any further questions for the question thank you lucas just target will be submitted for decision and we will hear arguments next in the united states first this anderson