his passport was issued before the date that he said he went to get it i mean that's not even having to do with the adverse credibility findings that he noted all the i j noted all those things and i don't know how that adds up except to say that this was the kind of conduct that justifies the order well all those things that you mentioned were part of her adverse credibility finding she said all those add up to the  he was and he was warned three times that he didn't know that he was unfolds in any respect that it would result in a frivolous finding well those those warnings were signed in part and in writing well there's there were problems with the with with her adverse credibility finding i could take the letters for example if you measure the problems with the dates they don't necessarily they don't necessarily indicate that the things were that the letters were forged also mentioned where the handwriting on the copy of the mayor's letter and the original were different handwriting doesn't mean it's not forged it could be several things it could be that we have two documents here it could be that the dates are just an afterthought what's material is whether the contents are the same the contents are the same if you look at the signature to the lay person the signatures with the same the same with the certificate from the doctor she saw them she mentioned the ink was the same credibility but nothing here says that he materially fabricated the entire story of his arrest and what happened to him in prison and on and on and all the other things and i was just messing with that you know she says that she seems to just the letters were fabricated but as i was just mentioning you know none of it it's based on speculation at this point if you think that well the ink is the same on this and that but without and without and also from forensics because a judge is not an expert on this it's a speculation to say that well the ink written on the date in the in the doctor's letter is the same as the ink written other than the sarpanches letter of the mayor's letter same goes for the passport the passport is a fake passport more and more likely so if the issue date is a month before it doesn't matter because it's a fake passport there is no issue date on the passport it's fake but those are things that were never taken into consideration so the so what i'm saying is her credibility finding are based on things that can be explained they're either inconsisten these are trivial or explainable another example would be the letter from the mayor mentions that the petitioner and the father were released at the same time to start testifies that he was released the father was released the day of the rest he was released three days later judge says this is an inconsistency it really isn't it's more of a language barrier because if you read the text of the letter it looks like it's written in poor english it's actually very similar to that when he went to the hospital but he didn't go to the hospital he was arrested but he wasn't arrested he was told that he had had to rest for ten days and was told he was fine go do whatever i mean i can rise to is the level that he's just a he's the bad witness he was a he's a bad witness he was not a credible witness but it doesn't rise to the level to say that he fabricated the entire story there's nothing there that indicates that there's a  a political party which is the basis of his claim look at his dental records found out he came to the u s as much earlier age than he had testified to there they actually have evidence that he lied about his application substantial evidence here we have speculation that the documents forged because there's because it is the same because the dates are written we have a consistency is that go to his credibility but not to the level of saying that he fabricated his application it's a much higher standard  you had mentioned we were just talking about the letter from the mayor again i was saying that's not an inconsistency at all it's a language barrier what he what the mayor says in this letter is after paying twenty five thousand rupees the police left them and admitted them to the hospital the jets indicates that there was a letter saying that the father and the summer released at the same time which is going inconsistent from the sisters testimony but if you read it like that what it says is the police admitted both of them to the hospital at the same time that doesn't make any sense why would the police after beating up the per the petitioner sent him to the hospital that was never a claim and there was never a claim at all and the only reason it says that is because it's written poor english and so she's comparing his testimony to a document that's not written very well judge that he testified credibly and where he fails to present evidence that compels the finding that the immigration judges credibility findings were incorrect and that the finding regarding frivolous application was all it was compelled or contrary as well mr really don't from that in the agency context and the governor argues that the same applies with this regard with one added with one addition the supreme court has always emphasized that in the immigration context the attorney general's legal and factual findings are entitled to special deference in particular not only because it's sort of an elected office but also because of all the foreign policy implications that may result in the need to balance this nation's security and immigration concern yes your honor the answer question is yes which one basically all of them that were used in the credibility point where was the finding point to the record with the finding this with material first we're going to inconsistency is that we're prevailing here we have the immigration judge when he uses when she uses these for the credibility finding this court or to impose them it's more of a materiality requirement in this regard when it comes to use of inconsistency as it's only why is there a specific planning any one of these inconsistent with material you can answer that yes or no the immigration judge record review and as a result we can look at the entire record now in this case we simply have the immigration judge who lays out bit by bit all the concerns and all the problems that arise as it even takes place in the hearing or on or when the are what's the difference the difference is this or our credibility has to do with whether or not what is said will be believable frivolousness finding under the regulations requires that there be some type of fabrication in this case what you have is immigration judge who lays out every instance that's a problem in this case doesn't doesn't cite other elements which i'm assuming she considered to be not really material such as what you know what they did his father did his fa living etc etc those were left out this immigration judge selected these particularized findings again thorough explanations as to what was problematic with with them and having given that analysis then said this person lacks credibility for those grounds and then made the finding this person i find this person has fabricated evidence based on those findings you know when i read this grand script it strikes me as a poor you know why and why this witness has particularized enough and the government's missed that based on the careful analysis that the immigration judge just at the beginning of her decision afterward she says based on those findings this person lacks credibility after that says based on those findings immigration judge has to make a specific finding that the alien no knowingly filed a frivolous application then that defines what's frivolous there has to be a specific crime being that the applications frivolous and then the fines frivolousness in terms of you know falsifying a material point so are there any courts that have addressed in published opinions whether the i j a has to make a finding of materiality on what was fabricated the only court to do so that i recall your honor is the third circuit's case that raised by judge noonan however the eleventh circuit the fifth circuit which have also looked at this issue have not impose such a requirement instead finding that in those cases that the finding of a fabrication is clearly supported by the the marin this case where the alien testifies he received the original and only the original from india and somehow different differently written dates got put on that original as opposed to a subsequent copy that was submitted to the court this is the type of thing that made the immigration judge say in the hearing it looks like this was fabricated so looking at the whole record we do have the immigration judge  making the finding that there that this is a frivolous application and specified in her decision that she would make a finding which supports the interview to changing the regulation put forward by your honor one way to look at it is that we would the immigration judge has made a specific finding of a frivolous asylum application and from the government's point of view when we look at it would be to say that finding has to be upheld unless we think the record compels the conclusion that no material elements were deliberately fabricated that is the government's position that there doesn't have to be a finding on as to which i'll call it a clear circumstance where the immigration judge was careful not to lay out all the problems that she found with the evidence we do know which elements she considered part hardly fabricated both from the record and from the decision that satisfies what the regulation would require and the attorney general's application of that regulation is entitle to substantial deference i that i read from the regulation eight c f r to avoid point two zero yes a light shed on this by the statute itself now the statute is even more limited simply saying that if there's a finding the frivolous application dealings of the n l for relief under the immigration nationality  it's true that the judge did lay out every piece of i don't think she thought it was a problem the case and it's true that she said that what this amounted to was the petitioner had lacked credibility but that doesn't necessarily mean that everything he said was fact that he lived in costa rica that and that's material because it goes to relocation the fact that he can relocate somewhere else and later on he admitted the fact that he lied about the fact he lived in costa rica for him to lose it wouldn't have to be as i understand it wouldn't because there's that because the date is written you know he's inconsistent about whether he's in u p c but none of that rises to the level of saying that he fabricated the entire application and i times i guess he wouldn't have to