i hesitate to characterize this case as egregious but i do think a review of the total record will demonstrate a substantial bias the fact that the trial attorney in this case repeatedly made a very leading statements to the to the  intentionally tried to confuse the petitioner the petitioner in this case is a very an educated man from china a he testified in the record shows that he  education was minimal he could read a little but he couldn't write and i think let's let me stop you there for a second that's one of the issues he supposedly illiterate can read a little whatever  seems to be the manager of a bookstore well his testimony was your honor that that yes he and his wife ran a bookstore she his wife was more educated than she was then he was and she was the one that i den if i had the books that they needed to purchase and then he was sent out to obtain the books and his main responsibility in the bookstore was to sort them out and organize them but i think it was clear from his testimony that he wasn't the one making the decision as to which books it would seem to me that the wife could explain these go here these go here these go here how do you explain the inconsistency in his testimony with regard to whether or not he knew that the was perhaps forbid by chinese authorities he makes some some statements about you know that's what the customers really wanted to read and so on which seems to indicate that he learned before the day of the police raid that he was carrying contraband your honor i would contend that that a complete reading of his testimony would show that there is no discrepancy in what he taught and what he told he stated very clearly in this testimony that originally that what he stated was there were books that were inside the bookstores that were sold and there were also shelves outside of the bookstore where people could bring materials and put those materials there and that those books were free they weren't sold by the bookstore and and the bookstore didn't even for cure them he hell the standard of review is as a come the opposite conclusion to that reached by the finder of fact which was that he was prevaricating well i i would assert your honor that as you go through the testimony and i have some that i would like to read to the court i think we've all read the testimony and you know you were just to look at the whole record what do we do with the i g demeanor finding that there were long pauses and puzzled looks when he was being asked questions involving prior inconsistent well he was being asked questions about things that occurred some some substantial time before and i think the record reflects accurately that he was trying to remember correctly so that he could respond accurately i don't think a long process could necessarily be held against him as as a discrepancy or is it as i mean that that's a very subjective statement your honor and i know it's why demeanor is hard for us as a to gauge on appeal and we have to give some deference to the finder of fact i mean i'm sure you've tried a lot of cases where you asked a witness a very difficult question and there was a very long and pregnant pause in the courtroom while the witness was trying to figure out how he was going to get around this hard question that's the kind of thing that is the basis of the demeanor and i concede that your honor certainly certainly in a in a very fair situation we have to can we have to defer to the judgment of the immigration judge in this situation so whatever to me the record would also  unfortunately your honor you were i wasn't there i can only i can only speculate based on my own experience and unfortunately i don't have a lot of time but i will tell you time and time again my experience in these kind of situations is one of the main problems is the translator because chinese and english are very different languages and if the translator is not a good one and there are many who are not good ones then there's a real problem in trying to answer a question that the translator hasn't posed correctly now obviously we do we can't know that from the record so that's purely speculation which i don't mean to do but i would but i will indicate to the court that that's often the case there's one very important thing i would like to point out to the court in my time is short it's it's as i indicated to the court earlier the trial counsel made very leading and and argumentative statements one of the one of the things that the trial counsel accused him of is stating in his testimony that is bookstore had been closed and yet open totally omitting that from his written statement and the trial counsel said why did you admit that from your written statement while the fact is he did not omit it from his written statement pay it in line to be i am recognize that in the b i gave did recognizing that even if you even if you take that out of it you've got a valid point there but even if you take that out of it the rest of the findings are or are supported isn't that what they what they said well your honor the b i a largely adopted what the what the trial judge did but the i think showed very definite prejudice this statement that i talk about or reviewing the b i a ruling yes that's correct your honor but as i indicated to a large degree the b i a ruling adopted morning your honour's american miles for attorney general wants may please the court the court should deny the petition because joe cannot show that this record compels the conclusion that he allegations of bias and prejudice even the translation errors none of this was raised on appeal so not exhausted it's been waived the court really should not consider any of those types of arguments additionally at the end there you were just talking about which decision is on review before the court and the government's brief contended that he review both the immigration judge and the board's decision together because the board essentially a id's decision as a whole and selectively discussed portions and you look at the immigration judge's decision along with the board's decision counsel just agreed with that position and in their reply brief they did not dispute that so both decisions are on review as for mr chow's ability to demonstrate that he presented or that the evidence compels the conclusion that he presented a credible claim as this court was just discussing there are several in consistencies and lack of clarity at best as to fundamental aspects of his claim you were discussing about the question of when that the immigration as a inconsistency is portion of the ids decision that the immigration judge properly found interracially and let's take a few as examples i understand they were reviewing it but they didn't adopt it with they said is they're reviewing the findings were clear error and all other issues they're reviewing the noble but the findings of fact are credibility determinations are all that all findings of fact the underpinnings are factual and review was for clear error not to know so the emigrate so the board was relying on the immigration judge's findings of fact in affirming the decision as a whole and just selectively discussing some counsel pointed out the board's decision is not particularly lengthy or all that involved in discussing the nature of the inconsistency in the immigration judge's decision is really necessary to understand why clerk for immigration judges and it's very to lot of it depends on if they render a decision that day at the end of the hearing orally sometimes they reserved because there were several days of hearing in something that's a fact intensive like this they want to pull the thoughts together and ask for assistance and they write they issue a written decision and call the parties back into the court that and to just hand it out and read their decision so there are many reasons that judges will opt to write out a position is that it adopted all of the factual findings and it just highlighted as examples for example the immigration judges finding as to when he learned about the content of the books or whether the public's appear security bureau was giving him trouble when he was trying to leave and they specifically addressed petitioners argument that the immigration judge erred on to count in saying that he didn't express in his statement that his booklet bookstore was closed and the board proceeded to say and the demeanor findings were substantially supported but all of this these were by way of and supplies some reasoning you do look to both and you look at the immigration judges decision to to understand what lay behind the board's reasoning and not just int know not just ones that they mention here the when the board uses terms like interleague or for example that's a strong signifier that that while they're affirming in total here are a few examples but and i'm not asking you to find that as a rule i'm asking you to look at the face of the board's decision and understand this is a very fact intensive case the immigration judge's decision is lengthy and provides the rationale  inconsistent with this notion that he got a intermediary to avoid that confrontation so why didn't the immigration judge if the immigration thin in consistencies like how could he read and or not be able to read in order books where there was not any effort by the i j a to extract a an explanation in this particular example of the passport bureau stopping him the question arose just directly by homeland security clarified to clarify did you have a problem and he first said he didn't remember and that right there was an inconsistency where he had initially said had not claimed that anything happened that then further questioning ensued and he gave waffling answers at that point excuse me i just want to make sure my time is up a like day and finish answering your question he because he changed from i don't remember and then he said he used somebody else because he figured he probably would have a problem and then do you counsel so it's a let me clarify you did not have a problem then he said he did have a problem would not so therefore you want somebody else that was a difference mind you thought it was clarified in his mind but that wasn't sufficient for the immigration judge than the demographics and judge didn't say i don't think clarified during cross examination she didn't have any trouble interrupting the cross examination to begin with and you're saying well  didn't want to interrupt because d h as lawyer was adequately exploring it for i'm not trying to surmise what was going on in the head of an immigration judge actively looking inwards and absolutely but trying to get your perspective and your answers to in the terms of these immigration proceedings where there are we see all the time there are bill used to communicate or language difficult to go back and look at a transcript as we're that's all we can do and you look at it and it's it cries out for some kind  of i'm trying to understand your position is what the obligation of the i j is who ultimately has to make that conclusion and she does she cites is a prime the inconsistency of the immigration judges obligation is to take the evidence and spend presented on direct cross examination redirect all of the evidence in the record and during cross examination is when this first a rose and there were changing waffling answers that is in the record and that he had the opportunity to explain during that line of questioning because do you just counsel say did point out you said yes you said no which is it and he said no i didn't so it went from no yes no ok and then redirect there was no redirect examination by counsel so immigration judges left with word i hope the court would forgive me can you hear me yes i'm sorry your honour's i hope the court would forgive me for addressing a question which you ask opposing counsel in regard to why there was such a lengthy written decision by the judge and i would like to suggest that my own experience where it's where the case is very kept clear cut ninety five percent of the time it's an oral decision not a written decision if the case is difficult case and if the judge is is trying to decide one way or the other and wants to really substantiate the basis of her decision in other words even effort decision is questionable she'll do a lengthy written decision and throw in everything including the kitchen sink and i've had that happen on several occasions i would love to tell you one experience where the or there was there was an initial oral oral decision by the judge the case was remanded back to the judge and the second time even though there was absolutely no new testimony taken so so the judge was making a second decision based on the testimony that she had originally did an oral decision public security bureau didn't stop you from getting that passport correct answer i do not remember that those are the questions i counsel then the judge turns to your clients as you don't remember something as important as realizing that the public security office did not block the passport being issued to you answer yeah when i asked way to handle it for me the public security stopped me question so now you're saying public security did stop you when you tried to leave answer yes isn't that inconsistent with the position you're taking now that he didn't have any trouble even i didn't specifically take that position your honor but i agree with returns yes it does your honor however as as the other your colleague and fisher judge fisher thank you as judge fisher indicated he testified that he used an agent to obtain the passport and he was trying to explain why he used the agent to obtain the passport because he was concerned that if he went himself to the public security bureau they wouldn't give