will after arguments go back and have our conference and our law clerks will talk with the students while we're in conference then we'll come back and chat with he was well and any lawyers who want to remain are welcome to remain we of course won't talk about any actual cases these or any others that are before the court but we'll look forward to chatting with you later with that we'll begin with immigration judges address credibility determination there is two areas two separate areas of testimony that the immigration judge took issue with in which the the v a upheld the first has to do with when the petition learned the name gogu seeing who was sort of the driving force and petitioners village behind persecution of his family over a number of years the i j a fixated on the fact that petitioners declaration used the name the words go the saying to refer to this individual in describing past events even though the petitioner testified that he only learned that this individual's name was going to be seeing in october two thousand eleven when he himself was first attacked but there is i was there is no reason of the declaration should have prefaced every description of past events with some sort of phrasing like i later learned that such and such occurred and no reason that he should have prefaced every reference to this individual who was going after his family with who i later learned was named to go saying or something like that indeed  paragraph five of the declaration at page three twenty four of the record he does state and sort of prefaces his whole letter narrative by saying i later learned that gokey seeing is a congress party member and worker who is rich and influential and  his financial and political influence to threaten others the declaration doesn't say one way or another when he learned the identity of this person and so i just hope premise of the declaration is sort of fundamentally inconsistent with his testimony and this respect i don't think is accurate i think that mischar the record be ok rejected that same argument correct right and that's why we're here they just adopted an affirmed decision so i think we're really mean looking at the edges this isn't here i don't think they added any kind of better defense of it and the gave you know this this declaration is plainly going through these events in describing these events from his perspective when he sat down with the preparer to prepare it in two thousand and fourteen this isn't you know th of the artist as a young man where he's trying to recreate only the knowledge and language he had is a supposal as the events occurred in time you know i don't think there's any reason that the court or anyone would expect someone to scribe things in that way he now saying that's just simply inconsistent with his actual testimony but again we don't know we don't know if in the declaration when he found that out we don't know from the declaration well yes we do if you look at paragraph thirteen of paragraph thirteen is that in august of one nine hundred ninety and family members talked about this person by name that's that's like the most natural reading of that paragraph is i think perhaps it's a reading of it i don't think that we know i don't think the declaration is at all clear is that a permissible reading of it well i guess i would point that's a yes or no question you think it's a permissible reading of the circumstances here which is what the real a real i d act requires and his and his explanation that he knew it was a congress party member but he never heard the name before and especially in light of the fact that  declaration explains that i mean there's nothing you know neither that nor anything else says that he was you know he heard those conversations at the time or was involved in those conversations at the time and in fact i think sort of consistent with his statements  that it's remarkable it's you know it's astonishing that he would not mention being stabbed in the face but a stab is a fundamentally distinct and different thing than being cut in the forehead a stab is a puncture wound it's a different kind of thing that i do consistently  and the premise of his finding this something that's significant enough to to hold all the respondent not going to counsel but him in paragraph twenty three of his declaration he says he premise that this was a major wound even though it didn't require stitches that it was a stab wound even though it was not there is no no one ever said it was a stab wound ok so there's a different characterization so just assume you're right that that i mischaracterized it still really no mention of it in the written submission from the doctor which is curious to me i don't know why it was submitted at all but yeah it creates this inconsistency or it's silent as to what the petition is right and i think that's the key i mean it's silent it doesn't corroborate that aspect of the treatment doesn't cooperate that aspect of the injury but i think this falls squarely under this court's decision and like the police report an issue like that in that case or the police letter at issue in that only if you have otherwise given credible testimony in their cases make clear that that opportunity isn't limited that if the testimony isn't credible to begin with there doesn't have to be that opportunity right and so but if this court were to my colleague the twenty jailer concerning why and so if this court otherwise upholds say upholds on the first ground then i agree that i would have to go back for this but my position is that we should not uphold on the first ground concerning the name and this has to go back because of this violation of i think violation of of the right notice an opportunity requirement did you wish to save any the morning your arms may please the court alexander looter the government your honor substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility finding the court's reviewing today where the record plainly contains the key and consistencies on which the agency relied first mr singh testified that he had never heard the name goji saying the name of the person who was allegedly responsible for his father's appearance his brother's kidnapping and the petitioners own beating until the petitioner himself was beaten on october twenty six two thousand and eleven but his brother testified exactly the opposite his brother or winder said the second day i was released from his own kidnapping which was months earlier in the proceeding july of the senior two thousand and eleven that's when i talked and that's when  context of that conversation was talking about when he discussed the events he'd just been through and he said as part of that discussion you know i mentioned the name goji saying so right there we've got an inconsistency between the petitioners own testimony his brother's testimony about when he learned the name of this key figure and furthermore we've got the inconsistency between mr singh's testimony and his declaration and i know that was just discussed pretty extensively so i'll just touch on that briefly the immigration judge in the board  both plainly looked at the explanation for that inconsistency that mr singh offers here today which is that the declaration was post hoc prepared based on information he learned at a later date the immigration judge already considered and rejected that explanation so the question now isn't whether that explanation is theoretically possible it's whether the record would compel any reasonable fact finder to accept it and to reverse this agency's decision this is a permissible view of this declaration it's written in chronological order it mentions mr  ten times before the petitioner even gets to the description of his own his own beating it which he claims to have first learned that person's name and paragraphs thirteen and fourteen he discusses goji singh's name in ways that naturally read just that he learned that name at a time before he himself was beaten so where this inconsistency is playing on the face of the record where the agency considered all these explanations that mr singh offers now the record can't c reversal on that basis turning to the second ground having to do with the head wound your honour's i whether it was a stab or a cut i think that's a distinction without a difference here because the issue is that he testified that it was a severe injury that he was drenched in blood and the reason why the pickup or something along those lines that's exactly right your honor he said at page one forty three i was in a lot of pain i felt the blood i felt the blood on my face on my body on my clothes question so you were drenched in blood answer yes and that's just one part of a long colloquy where he discusses how serious this injury was he was specifically asked a question of the various injuries that you suffered during this attack this was the worst injury or there was another one that was as bad or worse than this answer yes this was the biggest they kicked me in the stomach too and because of that there was blood coming in my urine and then he goes on to describe how he had to have a medicated bandage wrapped around his head repeatedly and that the doctor came to his fire six times to do that where is any of that in the doctor's notes where's any of that in a credible fear interview that's a serious omission or an inconsistency about what the immigration judge fairly described as a serious knife wound so where we're talking about the presence or absence of any mention of this injury in these documents i think whether the immigration judge described it as stab or cut really is such a trivial distinction that it's just not mentioned all the there's a stab at work in these documents and turning your honour's to mr i'm sorry it was the immigration judge yeah he did take into account the fact that perhaps you know in taking the credible fear now it's maybe the the interviewer didn't hear it or whatever he did credit that but do you think he credited sufficiently or at all with regard to the doctor's letter and the fact that it was prepared over a year later that perhaps you know this village doctor being at a very you know basic level may not have kept the kind of medical records that one could look back at and so he was piecing together the best he could so the silence as to the head wound was because last time in memory and that's something that the i j a should have credited the immigration judge absolutely did credit that you're honored pages seventy two to seventy three of the record the immigration judge considered a variety of explanations including that the doctor didn't write anything down and that the doctor was a village doctor so the limitations on this document absolutely were considered and now the question is with this record compel any reasonable fact finder to reach an opposite conclusion it would not in your honour's i'd like if i could just a turn of the run argument that mr singh raised in briefing and raise just a minute ago even if we set aside for a minute the the other inconsistency about when mr singh learned about the name saying even if we just confine our review for a minute to the head wound in consistency run still doesn't apply here first of all that arguments on exhausted in response to that point in our answering brief mr singh points the bottom right came out after his after the agency's decision but bought her i was an application of this court's ran a holding and ran came out years previous so if mr singh wanted to make a r argument after the immigration judge rendered his decision if mr singh wanted at that point to say hang on the immigration judge should have given me notice in an opportunity to obtain for the corroborate to absolutely done that under ran in the brief to the board he didn't do it so at this level  applying around and in doing so it looked at a letter that the petitioner in that case it submitted and it was a letter from a police inspector i'm quoting actually now a letter from a police inspector verifying the better i was the victim of an attack the immigration judge had seen that letter as having been inconsistent with the petitioners testimony but in the process of sorting between inconsistency and findings that are more in the nature of corroboration the court said well that letter didn't provide details of bottom rise of saul and therefore if the question is his testimony to discuss this and a letter did not provide details that's really more of a corroborate finding but here the doctors know that mr sin submitted did provide details it did discuss the dispositive issue with respect to this inconsistency which is what were the injuries mr singh sustained and what was his treatment for them the doctors no did absolutely discuss those that was the whole point of it and it said well he had swelling of the body and he received an injection of tara meissen that description of his injuries in the treatment he received is inconsistent with his subsequent testimony that he suffered this knife wound that caused him to be well i mean why would he have received beyond my area of expertise too but even just accepting for a minute that it is an antibiotic perhaps an antibiotic is important to treat swelling of the body i mean i think swelling inflammation that could be caused by an infection but the fact that we're both kind of red venturing into speculative territory here to try to figure out why it might have taken tara myosin i mean the fact that we have to even venture into that speculative territory shows that substantial evidence in the record supports the agency's finding because on the basis of the record as it exists the agency reached a permissible conclusion that where mr singh testified about this wound but it wasn't mentioned in supporting documents that is an inconsistency and you know your honor i think your question kind of goes to mr singh's attempts to well his his strategy after this inconsistency came up was to in briefing attempt to impeach the doctor frankly to discuss the limitations on the slaughterhouse prepared later and what we could try to discern from it but again the immigration judge considered the limitations of this document considered fairly what it said so what do you have been more credible if he had not presented a doctor's note at all it's hard to say your honor i think he certainly would have avoided part of this problem he still would have had to contend with the inconsistency between his testimony was credible fear interview the fact is he did submit the letter he offered it as supporting his burden of proof when he put that into evidence he was suggesting that this was going to help his claim he's got to stand behind it at that point and so where it then creates an inconsistency that's the record the agency has to deal with and that's the record that we have to look at now is supporting or not supporting the agency's decision this inconsistently excuse me this inconsistency pretty clearly this is playing on the face of the record just turning back to the run argument here as want to make one final point there as you judge what you pointed out a moment ago during the presentation the rand doctrine doesn't apply unless the applicant's testimony is otherwise credible and it so right away distinguishable but even if we get through that first hurdle then what ron requires is that if the immigration judge is going to fault petitioner for failing to submit corroborative information he's got to give notice an opportunity to obtain the document or explain why can't be obtained here the immigration judge said page seventy five the court certainly cannot fault the respondent for failing to provide corroborative evidence yeah explicitly said corroboration wasn't an issue for those reasons r analysis and a challenge to credibility which certainly happened here particularly where there was a challenge to be i have the analysis of this document absolutely exhausts for this court the notice and opportunity argument and so it's certainly before the court