the police officer but that was cleared up the i g said he didn't think there was a problem it might have been an interpretation problem but then the i g goes to the other evidence and says that based on the totality of the evidence i'm with left the in a safe place away from the authorities here speculates using extrajudicial knowledge about china and what the chinese authorities wouldn't i do in the situation where they would raid someone's house he states the also they talk about the issue the i g a with wondered out loud how can this individual get a visa to vietnam and specifically south africa first what we think that this evidence was not even don't have to have documentary journey don't have cooperated that didn't and what not and different rules kind of apply but there's still some basic things you look at and i'm just wondering  if i can misuse my knowledge i think this is because of the location of immigration court and that area a lot of cases are smugglers smuggled then on the border or town areas and they're also afraid that these people have to own money to people after they get  so oftentimes they bring up money as an issue like do you still owe money how much did you paid you paid off in actually this case they actually asked and did you you know paid off and i think he even says it's all paid off so i think that's an issue that they deal with i think some of these border border town areas where they're afraid that let's say the snakeheads would control the client after the proceedings are complete and that's why i think sometimes money comes up in these proceedings i don't see that too often in los angeles but is that do not go directly to the heart of the matter which i think is night circuit stand there and the person is absolutely lacking of credibility of all these other tangential issues that don't go to the heart of the  cannot the immigration judge say because you've been so lacking in credibility and everything else you've testified to although it does go to the heart of the matter then i really draw the conclusion that i can't accept your credibility at all or do you just look at the heart of the matter and just only that and just ignore everything else i think the the real i d act addressed that particular concern but i think for this case law i think it's the heart of the matter his brother was a member of an illegal organization in china that's considered a cult and they came to arrest him they come to this house and they end up seeing the father and they see  came to united states and actually began practicing following god is the heart of the matter is your position that the i j a did not address anything dealing specifically with the heart of the matter and they can discredit ability to determination absolutely ye and nothing else counts right well i wouldn't say that but i would say yes nothing else counts but i know that in real life things do count but i still think even the things they look that was all speculative conjecture and did not you're actually bill johnson you can get asylum i mean that's that's also i believe is the meat case that talks about that so i would see as it is it is irrelevant you know it's not the heart of the matter the heart of the matter was whether or not this person and the matters that go to the heart are the bloody nose while deemed minimal it was taking a kind of a minimal by itself but here we have other things and let me list those for the court number two was his release at one point his release from his detention and  certainly is just walking away in a hurry from the heart of the matter i'm just a visitor here but i'm just curious i mean do you agree or disagree that if the credibility of the terminations does not go to the heart of the matter it doesn't matter whether or not somebody is credible i left three weeks later my family makes five thousand dollars a year i was able to come up with fifty thousand dollars it becomes a house of cards that when you take when you start taking cards away they all fall apart it's it's a mosaic to persecution is absolutely relevant but always go to the heart of the claim at the heart of the claim is not a pinpoint moment in time with these asylum applications because often the mistreatment occurs and then it's what happens next how do i get you know considered to be part of the tension to be candid with the court certainly the details surrounding his visits to south africa nothing to do with this case right it has something to do with his you know and terms of how and it could have been due to interpretation it could have been due to any number of things but when the i j a talks to us makes his record then he can theme but you do have the benefit of the entire record and i'm going to that record there are certain things where he gave multiple answers to the same question during his testimony we have an entire record and we can't be friends of that so we now certainly to him it was not in fact at the end of the day minimal regarding his occupation he states three different occupations that he had he was a farmer he worked in a carton factory and worked in a my brother can never be safe he says you know foreign gone are persecuted everywhere those are those are specifics and they certainly would go to his fear of persecution his detention my family came in  a guard at other points and my family came and bailed me out these are sufficient reasons there's a vision reasons if the interpreter under the deferential standard this court reviews you know reviewing the record in its entirety it's one thing to say well maybe maybe it's a matter of dual interpretation maybe it could have been this way maybe  to his brother the question was is he safe he said he stayed for the moment actually the next question was regards to the safe to live a normal life is that no i can't work that check my id we can't live properly or even where he lives in the sichuan province so he