a few involved adverse credibility determination and although the petitioner has the burden of proof for any asylum claim or any relief they should request that there's credibility can only be upheld if there's substantial evidence supporting it now the court the immigration court provided five reasons why he deemed petitioners testimony not credible her claim not credible and i want to ask each of those quickly and reserve some time or for a photo first she starts off by indicating that the letter from the petitioners mother didn't provide enough sufficient details regarding her own the mother's own a clear even when an applicant's asylum application leaves some details open and her testimony in court is more detail than that circuit has helped but that it is not a basis to say that her testimony therefore is not far from clear was far from clear because in the direct examination her attorney begins by basically asking what happened and she testifies that she was hit in the eye and lost consciousness then the second question is question as to how long she was discussing into it when she said she she lost consciousness or blacked out because she clearly at some point regained consciousness now whether that was a momentary whether that you know took a few moment from that first question it was unclear what the meaning was the questioner and the answer and then she was then asked what did the officer basically ask the second time whether the woman officer do the woman who hit you attorney asking her pointing out to her you testified earlier that you had blacked out is that correct and then she gave some answer she didn't it was a she didn't give a yes or no answer but she gave an answer and then moved on to the next question would you represent petitioner in proceedings before the immigration judge no i did not i also you answered the question confusion when maybe that's as good as you're going to get because the lawyer doesn't want to ask any other questions well your honor under ninth circuit law regarding i guess conflicting testimony in order for the judge to base the adverse credibility on that issue that immigration judge has to number one provide an opportunity for clarification and number two in the world decision has to discuss why he or she believes that the explanation was not credible the opportunity was there three opportunity for cross examination correct hard to redirect examination that's correct because of course there were of course there was a hearing but the immigration judge has an independent responsibility to right now he only said it one time but his parents said there were two times in which they were asked for a bribe now there's a clear conflict there but the problem was and this was pointed out and i started to decision it's possible that the a standard i hear you have a question on direct question on cross redirect why doesn't that satisfies standard because the government has put that that episode at issue because the immigration judg simply pointing out that for the first time in the decision that's insufficient in fact there are nicer cases when the board of immigration appeals when they take a look at and they had or and they noticed that there's a discrepancy to support an adverse credibility determination if that's the first time that the board of immigration appeals identified it that case gets remanded it does but that's likely different circumstance i think speculate because they don't know how they run businesses but on the other hand we've talked we've said that immigration judges can use their common sense and i haven't been able to delineate whether that's speculation or common sense but here we have a situation where a person has not been working has not been paid for twenty one months almost two years and then there's a piece of evidence comes in so he's no longer working in the immigration judge says that doesn't make any sense to me now is that speculation or is that him using common sense which he's allowed to use i believe that's speculation in her testimony in her application she indicated that after she was arrested she was asylum application what did she say i missed understood then because i don't know stood at the hearing she said that she had been fired when she quit work she got no more money and she couldn't apply for any other work because she ha been fired from his first job right i don't believe she said that she was fired immediately and so obviously by the time she came to carry at that point she had to discharge letter and she had been fired in her application the female officer do anything else to you after hitting you in the eyes and she replied and this is at the record on page seventy seven after i was hit on the eyes i don't know anything she did not discuss being pulled up by her hair she did not to discuss being slapped in the face she did not discuss any of that but on cross examination went on cross examination she was directly confronted and this is that the record of page ninety two she describes being hit feeling dizzy being pulled in her hair being slapped and she was confronted by do you just counsel earlier when you were turning asked you questions i remember you said you passed out and you didn't know what happened after they hit your eye she gave a very confusing answer to that confrontation question and iran or i also want to raise an important issue with regard to the remarks on this incident she was directly confronted with  was an inadvertent discrepancy and said well we kind of went over that quickly your honor he was she was represented by counsel and she had an opportunity to clarify this and other issues that arose during the during the hearing she before the board on her and her appeal then for the first time before this court they raised the issue of a translation problem there is absolutely no evidence in the record of any translation problem and this being spoke mandarin she was given a mandate mandarin interpreter there were no complaints during the course of the hearing that either one of them couldn't understand each other and and so there's just absolutely no evidence and more importantly at the end of the hearing when this inconsistency was raised the attorney at that explanation for that very important inconsistency to focus on the question of consciousness versus never losing consciousness that seems to be the lunch of his argument on credibility and here i have to agree with judge very right just don't see much of a contradiction on that hearing and she took and she testified at at the record at page ninety four that she wrote back that she'd been fired in two thousand and one because she was not officially fired until two thousand and one but in the very next sentence with inconsistency with regard to when she was terminated when she was fired when she knew she'd been fired and just want you later you raise an excellent point with regard to the common sense that the immigration judge was applying here she was confronted with the fact speculation i do not believe it was speculation here on earth and i think that the judge based that based on manufacturing decision on three critical points the first was that the documents had an addition of not  probably knows from pakistan or guatemala or china what correct or almost feel looks like there has to be some places on the record to explain what an authentic one looks like and is different and i don't see that your honor certainly the immigration judge found those documents questionable but he did not base its entire decision with regard to the manufacturing of these documents on the fact that they just didn't look right they were well he bases it in part on that and why is that ok well your honor i think the supreme court has has expressly disapproved of sort of the divide and conquer approach to these decisions and i think that when you look at all of the bases for this decision and i get it was the ingestion of you know authenticity number one number two the fact that she had used specifically fraudulent employment documents to gain entry into the united states through the cut through the u s consulate that's number two and number three the inconsistency that she was provided to terminate a letter twenty one months after she had been told to stop work none of that actually answered my question which is whether there's any basis in the record for the conclusion manufacturing decision on i see my time has expired if i may briefly conclude sure thank you your honor this court has wisely stated that the immigration judge is by virtue of his acquired skill uniquely qualified to determine whether an alien's testimony has about it the ring of truth in light of all the record evidence in this case the immigration judge concluded that repeated and significant inconsistency in between drinks testimony and the documentary evidence in this case doesn't add to my recollection and i'm summing through it doesn't feel specifically with that issue about whether she lost consciousness or did not and just that does that mean that   its own opinion i think basically all the issues are so are our president the government had the same just as we did that issues were all defined we were raising an entirely new issue before the another issue of a new council coming in spotting a different problem the immigration judge pointed out that the that he asked the petitioner whether this trend was arrested at the time that you were arrested in april two thousand and her answer was no now the treasury trent transcription actually spells her last name is g h a n g and the prior counsel who briefed this issue pointed out that perhaps this was a typo or a clerical transcription i would raise the question and obviously i don't know because i haven't actually listened to the tape if the immigration judge actually mispronounced the name the last name of  his question that's a that's a key problem and this is another one of those problems where when the immigration judge spots an inconsistency there's an obligation for the judge to actually confront the applicant on on the