credibly and the second is if credible did he suffer past persecution and we believe that the answer to both of those is yes in terms of credibility your honour's under oath to tell you the circumstances we post rely de act inconsistency doesn't have to go to the heart of the claim correct yes and so why is this not that type of inconsistency well your honor a we believe that there was no inconsistency here the words that the petitioner used was lost consciousness and what's going on one dictionary defined that as the loss of ability to perceive and respond now it was the a when questioning him about what had happened but r j used the word knock out the idea is the different term but we're talking about two things i believe there was an omission yes and then there's an inconsistency  and the question so why isn't the omission because in the original declaration i believe your client didn't mention he mentioned being beat him mention being beaten badly of the second interview and then during the testimony he said he was beaten to the point i guess of or that it was unconscious and then later when asked to clarify he said well maybe not unconscious maybe i was just dizzy or fuzzy so those are the two things we're dealing with and i think you know that our law we just talked about the quick real question for me is that is is that is that a mission is that been in this century honor it be one thing if you had said oh if you talk about the effects of the beating and said oh i had bruises here i had a welt on my head or whatever but he didn't in his statement he didn't mention anything about the facts so even though he omitted the fact that he had lost consciousness from the beating i don't think that that should be severe enough so you just told me about lie regarding omissions what's your best post real i d act case regarding this trivial inconsistency well totality of the circumstances we're talking about hours of testimony and there is one inconsistency and we believe that that should not support an adverse credibility finding especially in this case your honor we don't believe that there was an inconsistency as i said the the petitioners words were lost consciousness but when the i g question and she says so you're telling me that being knocked out was the most serious thing that happened you're going to the interrogation also talk about the latter from i think his parents or i believe it was and the issue there it could mr wang have so have submitted an additional documents after the terminated because he had been his son's guarantor but we see the mid the actual terminations evidence yes but i think it was the i j a that said well we don't have anything to corroborate that so we didn't have anything to corroborate the corroboration i mean because the fact that his father was term it was corroborated by i guess the best evidence that we could possibly find which is actually the letter that terminated him and then the judge saying that your father's letter didn't actually corroborate what the terminations letter already said see that i don't i don't believe that that makes a lot of sense and i don't believe that that should should again support the adverse credibility if i my me did he testify with the translator yes and that's the of the i mean we all know you know translations are not perfect and so when you use these terms knocked out unconscious loss of consciousness pass out fuzzy lightheaded these kind of things it might not necessarily translate one hundred percent and so that's why i think when the i used the term knocked out he wanted to clarify and say no no no i was fuzzy and lightheaded stunned and that's i think where the inconsistency allegedly arose and that's what we believe that that unto itself should not support the adverse credibility finding and there was other evidence to support you know his his his testimony as well he did submit like this the fine or the bail receipt piece admitted to the fact that he was expelled from school he submitted the that evidence and he submitted to the terminations of his father so these are things that were all corroborated we have hours of testimony and then we have one omission and alleged inconsistency and that supports an entire adverse credibility finding i don't believe that under totality of the circumstances that that should stand and if credible then we believe that he has suffered past persecution i mean in addition to the the ten day detention and the beating it was clear that even after he was released the the authorities still had an interest in him the authorities required him to report weekly they expelled him from school and they essentially kept an eye on him and when he left china and came to the united states they t because i don't understand the extent of his injuries and in my letter under twenty j and i said the recent case or the sessions that was just decided on july thirtieth two thousand and eighteen in that case the court said the seriousness of an  injury should not be the determining factor in deciding whether or not one sub or persecution so that id essentially said i can't decide whether he suffered past persecution even if credible because i don't really know what happened what the the series of the injured injuries was the please the court my name is new an essential and i represent the acting attorney general in this matter the court should deny the petition for review because substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that petitioner was not a credible witness here the immigration judge identified not only one omission but several in consistencies in petitioners testimony he twice claimed one son direct and then again on cross that he had lost consciousness or had passed out after being beaten by two police officers in the detentions and let's address some of the points that were just made right now this is basically an omission is it not and i mean from the declaration to the testimony and there's law tells us the omission not a sprawling as a middle basic inconsistency what's what's your response to that i think there is to keep responses to that point is that it's harm that befell him while he was in detention and yet he didn't put it into the structure into this written declaration that captures the most key parts of his asylum claim in those kind of circumstances it's not unreasonable for the immigration judge to find that he was invalidating his testimony because he he on direct he was one who volunteered thank you been knocked unconscious it wasn't something coming out on the cross examination which was part of what by was also concerned about another reason why that omission should be mr windsor missions should be treated as probably of lack of credibility is that as my prison counsel mentioned credibility is looked at going to tell you to give the circumstances by arguing that this is just one mission that the i j a found him not credible it's a combination of both both your mission and that when the immigration judge actually asks him why does the declaration omitting this information about you having been knocked out or he says you know after the immigration judge confirms isn't this the most serious thing that happened to you he says yes but then he begins to downplay the severity of his incapacitation claiming that sort of being totally knocked out was more like he was majority of the parallel agree with you but yet to me this whole inconsistency issue seems somewhat trivial i mean because he says he was taken into custody but they're not quite out yet and i think it's different in that scenario because when he was asked himself what does the loss of cause of consciousness mean to you and so he defined it as being the loss of feeling or being unable to perceive anything so he had a definition of consciousness in his mind and he had been in the teacher's counselor i'm sorry i can't remember who exactly asked him but he asked under the definition of just given us did that happen to you were you re ndered unconscious and he said no so even under his own definition he was on contradicting himself because he knew that all along that was his idea of what unconscious is meant and so with during direct and on cross examination he says clearly i was knocked unconscious and then suddenly when the immigration judge puts him on notice that there is a mission a declaration suddenly he's backing away from the idea that he was knocked unconscious and he was it's piers that he's downplaying what happened to him about this particular topic i mean it's seems to me that the i realize we you know we weren't there so we have to give deference to the r j who said i listened to the testimony but as i read the record  these so called inconsistency seem to me just profoundly trivial and human this man testified for a long time and the vast majority of his testimony  you know what was the credibility of it was just not seriously challenge and you know i was a trial judge i mean i sat there for year after year listening to people testify  at trials and you know you you you got a real sense of who was telling the truth and who wasn't telling the truth and you know it's it's just hard  to think of any great great great many witnesses who are testifying essentially truthful truthfully get confused get circumstances and you've got to really come back and help me understand why inconsistency is this trivial are going to spin this man out of this country  gated twice i mean really in the still teletype of the circumstances which were supposed to look at i'm not i'm not sure that that's you know the main part of his his case i mean he does mention it but it was an omission and then it was the inconsistency slight or was it significant that's kind of where we are here and what's your best case my may  consequence of the beating whether he was groggy or whether he had passed out respectfully i read the immigration judge's decision differently i think she was saying what i have been i've heard so many inconsistent explanations about why you didn't put your lack of unconsciousness into the declaration and i don't know if you were partially conscious if you were you know just dizzy or light headed whether you were fully in conscious so she didn't know what to believe at all in terms of this attack but none of that had i mean her her decision i think is broader than that she is saying i don't believe his claim that he may have helped his grandmother get christian material i think there's language to that effect of the decision but i don't think she lets him off the board but isn't this come becoming confused about how or to handle the i jury's decision because it seems to be what you're telling me now is that that the finding of inconsistency is that  just didn't believe him globally and i'm not sure we can under the law really follow that approach physical harm so she does seem to be taking issue with the idea of the beating at all and also pointing out that this is a material issue for her but is she getting no physical because she simply doesn't  i don't want to make jokes about immigration judges decisions but they often are not complete as we would like them to be i do think that she has a concern we sometimes i do think that in this decision that that's not a problem here because she was making clear that she did not find him credible with respect to his claim you feel she was making i think she pleased it out in the language of her decision feel that you have any other factors judge called any other questions we're supposed to look at the totality of circumstances very much so i mean i think that's also part of why that omission gets strengthened why the various variable answers  counsel just briefly your honour's i mean i understand governing councils argument that there were several inconsistency is but i think all those points again to one alleged insistence that we believe was not an inconsistency and that your honour's have stated seems to be very trivial so i don't think there are several instances it is we're talking about one and that should not invalidate what was otherwise a consistent and credible t you both for your presentation here today the case of one versus jefferson sessions the third is submitted