they please the court i'm robert job and i'm appearing today on behalf of the petitioner bob you're saying although the immigration judge found this interesting testimony not credible he never attempted to justify his adverse credibility finding my p an inherent consistency in mr snowden nobody had any basis to show why he would be singled out when he as he pointed out pains were taken to make sure his name when the payments were made his name with their those were destroyed his name was removed there was nothing illegal about it isn't that sort of an inconsistency to think that as soon as he shows up or has when he shows up at the authorities take him into custody on this point everybody in the courtroom the government lawyer the judge mr singh's own counsel everybody agreed that any answer he gave as to how the police learned what they learned would be entirely speculative is that not necessarily i mean he might actually the question how do you think they knew that you were a supporter of a colleague among the government objects the government says it's calling for speculation and that just simpson says yes it's calling for pure speculation at this point but we do a lot of speculating in this courtroom in cases such as this and then he invites him to speculate and the bottom line is the guy doesn't know how the police learn this information he can speculate but you can't find him to be a liar simply because you find the speculation in that way when we all agree it's pure speculation well you mean few people have been more immigration cases than you have you know how the system works and how inherently you're in a situation where almost zero only one person in the room actually has firsthand knowledge everybody else is reaching and in the dark and so it's a world of speculation and you would expect somebody who lived through it who presumably would have thought about it to be able like answer some of the questions that nobody else has any information on some things are just not knowable you know i mean for somebody who's arrested that expecting to be arrested he's raising money for this political party he goes back to india to visit stanley then out of the blue please come knock on the store drag him to a police station and start questioning but isn't the upshot of this with we take but you know the convention against torture etc usually it's only the person who's claiming asylum that knows what happened whether they were  consideration but are you saying that we cannot give any deference to the credibility call or can't agree with it simply because we don't see that we think it was incorrect because there might have been speculation saying you can't find him not credible for not knowing something that he's in a position to now take a step over that we started because i don't think that's where it and i mean i think i understand what you're saying with regard to that you're at speculation he has no control o what the police do and so forth although i think you'd probably get a lot of thought to it but you're right that's outside of his knowledge and the other element that struck me is as being peculiar here was his medical condition and travel and he describes pretty serious being pretty serious injuries there's no no written confirmation no corroboration of the treatment that he said he received in any he leaves the country quickly well you may have a point that he's got reason he wants to get out but he gets out quickly in a condition makes it hard to see how he travels exactly he gets home to dubai no medical treatment there whatsoever and that doesn't really seem consistent with what he's described in terms of his injuries immigration judge his his focus was on his the fact that he was able to travel so quickly after having been brutalized like this that's what he found inherently impossible and i that point i just i think it's just simply what those were not granted he says he was taken to the plane in a wheelchair and did rest up in one evening before he went was not right right but then he just left the ones that we know nothing later as he taken off the off the plane on a get we have no information the u s medical treatment and yes he may not have been asked but one would have anticipated that in order to demonstrate the seriousness of what had occurred he would have come forward with that information about ongoing treatment which one would have expected i'm not aware of any curative powers of an airplane in fact to the contrary so i'm not sure that really we have no information of any right of any and you're saying well he wasn't asked he wasn't it would seem to me that trying to push he was and he would be emphasizing every single bit of treatment of care of whatever and suddenly it all goes away well no it didn't all go away or mentioning right but testified he wasn't bleeding he had no broken bones as far as we can tell he had a lot of bruises but he had to go wheelchair to get to the plane he was in a great deal of pain he was unable to walk because of the pain and was under medication including injections right so he was  and then we get off the plane and we hear nothing more right exactly so where's the substantial evidence that he's not telling the truth i mean we hear nothing like that has the so much in it as does that undermine his when you said there's no inconsistency the i j a said that kind of undermines of credibility i would expect that with those kinds of injuries he would have sought treatment when he got here he didn't come for nothing happens it almost seems like you're going to talk about how horrible it was there  substantial evidence supporting the immigration judges adverse credibility finding and here there's nothing all we have is spurious speculation by the immigration judge pure speculation where in a situation where the applicant was never given an opportunity to that's not what how i read the immigration judge's decision i read the immigration judge decisions focused on the inherent in possibility that he would have been able to board a plane and travel back to india given that he was beaten one day before in terms of the issue you're raising about what treatment he received the only evidence in the record i believe it's on page one hundred six where he says when he returned he received country medicine and he said i had no problem with receiving country medicine i'm a guy with a fifth grade education that's that kind of medicine is ok with me but in terms of his ability to board the plane you have to keep in mind but you're asking us to reject the i j s interpretation and assuming obama's no deference and i'm not sure i see how we get to that point where we can say clearly there was no basis whatsoever for that determination i'm out of time but i think if i could just respond to that your honor i think to him there's a there's a huge difference between inconsistency the guy says one thing here he says something different here that's not what happened in this case judge simpson conceded that there are no such inconsistency if he didn't contradict himself at all what he's saying is his testimony is inherently implausible it's inherently unbelievable and that yes the court has a greater role to play because what's what may seem impossible to judge simpson may in fact be entirely plausible and the fact that this guy excepted country madison yet somebody in his situation of the fifth grade education living in his circumstances might well except the treatment of country medicine that doesn't mean he's a liar it just means he's different from you and me india a good deal and that his residence there was not really permanent in nature at least that's the suggestion i get from the record but was instead soley based on his retaining his employment status and when as he put it that an immigration judge has the right to exercise common sense in matters of principle holik and we were aware of that bird what about councils point let's take for example the conclusion that there was there was no on the plane on the in the wheelchair being right resting up taking the medications was not true this was pure conjecture by the i j a who had no medical training and and and didn't inquire as to exactly what the nature of the the i'm going back to the other issue that i j found in which we are going to discuss with counsel and that is for example on the medical aspect there was no basis for the i g to make that determination was there there was a credibility call that required expert testimony specific and said you know i would like to have a little bit more information if i what happened for instance the medical records would help because in light of all of the different circumstances the fact that the abuse that he alleged had been described in the amnesty international