and why she fears returning back to china on direct however on cross and through the judge's questioning the judge under sascha was cherry picking negative factors that would insulate a negative credibility finding the first factor that the judge looks towards and inflating her negative credibility finding was that she said that the business license expired at the end of june two thousand and five this is inconsistent with her testimony that she was still running and owning a business in july of two thousand and five if these facts are true this is this would actually be consistent this isn't her page in a decision at sixty seven write the license could have been expired and she could continue to operate a business but she says that the actual business license buyers at the end of the year but actually her license expired actually in june so that would be consistent fact that she still was operating a business can you kno with a license that wasn't expired but if not why didn't the judge consider when the petitioner paid to one hundred thousand you won first based on the second floor in the middle of january of two thousand and five then at the end of april beginning of may of two thousand and five they asked her to move which she still had a valid license in the middle of june after may when she moved operated the business for a month and then at the end of may one it they wanted to collect seven thousand you want for rent when they all refused all the people working on the second floor refused to pay the seven thousand they basically went to go complain to the business administration department and their superiors however these  told them if you don't pay the seven thousand yuan we're going to stop they would they would literally at this point at the end of may beginning of june they could not operate their businesses that's what they were told and this is on page one thirty of the record lines thirteen to twenty three so at this point she was not physically able to operate her actual business so this is relevant fact that the judge did not consider to show that she was not allowed to operate this business and that pretty much at the end of two thousand actually when she was arrested in july of two thousand and five on july twelfth that the physical location was shut down so the judge required hard to actually produce documents to show that she was still operating after june of two thousand and five well how is that possible if she was not allowed to operate her business at the end of april beginning actually end of  the end of may when she was required to pay the seven thousand and they said well when i collect operating as you pay so at this point she went to go complain she wasn't operating a business so under basically she testify consistently to these facts so where's the inconsistency that there really is it so at this point then the judge requires you to have documents pertaining to this and underlying quoting z h i must provide an otherwise credible op in such as lie with notice an opportunity to either produce the evidence or explain why it's not available while it's not available because she explained in her answer they didn't let us operate and then they finally when they arrested me shut provoked provide after june that she was still operating business there wouldn't be that's one of the major factors that you're looking at that she insulates her negative credibility find she goes on with six more and i can go through with that but there's only one that is only one other that i think raises a serious i'm concerned and that's when she's trying to get her passport ok well again like she explains the process in china she explains that getting an id document such as a passport is not the same process if you're moving and that basically is unless you're sentenced to a crime then you're entitled to get a passport well so the concern was that she had been ordered to report into the police right part of a police unit or whatever might be called in china correct on a weekly basis right correct but she goes so they're aware of or supposedly he with her and with the police department fact so much so we should get when she she goes to the police station or building or whatever it's called to get her passport right she goes and she's to see the and it's that it's a different department inside there that she goes to get her passport but she's saying that everybody's entitled to get a passport unless you're sentenced or criminally charged she was never criminally char so what would be there's a big difference between monitoring someone who's causing trouble in the country why they're making her report versus somebody getting another identity document and that's what she's trying to establish and saying why i'm title to get my passport it's an i d document other than my house so registry other than my i d card so getting a passport how would that cause her any problems i'm on the back of where she is and who she is and that's an idea document it's not only just meant for travel the passport you she testified to that she testified that that she didn't have pretty much at that point a right she had a right to go get a passport she wanted to but she wasn't yvel this question on on direct on cross why did you get your passport it was never raised so with further fact finding if it is remain a backdown this is something that i think should be explored because and also provide evidence to show that there is laws from china that says that unless church physically charged or criminally charged or sentence that you are entitled to get a passport how long is misleading been here and she's been here since i believe two thousand and five how old is she couldn't she's in her clothes i would have to say back then she was in her but close to sixty sixty five so now she day or she said she's like seventy five today though and this instance so at this point there's other factors that the judge uses to negatively the negative factors to enslave a negative credibility find one of them she shows she doesn't accept the explanation of why she doesn't have ownership documents one of those documents because she said after i was arrested i was and i was in law in every business but how does this right was closed down she said and consistently with no cause first i gave it to my husband then we had then it was put into my business in a desk so i don't see how that explanation is not possible and why it should not be accepted as a positive factor in deciding credibility then the judge goes on to say that w the registry number and the id card number and the passport numbers don't match well that's actually incorrect because the passport number and the id card number actually match it's a house or registry that adds opportunity because the look of when ran was decided and when d h i was decided it was decided in two thousand and fourteen and run was in two thousand and ten this case was pretty much in the beginning of two thousand and eleven so i don't know if the judge  knew whether or not about rand so if the judge gave her opportunity notice i'm quite sure she can show that the trial could show that there is a new process out there which is even more important is that the judge didn't consider the factor that the government on april fifteenth two thousand and eight took all the documents into custody for forensics they said ok we need fifteen months fifteen months judge resets the case from april and i have the proceedings resets it to a trial but then sets it to a master because she's on a detained docket she says well we can't do it on that they have to detain docket so she brings them back brings back everybody i believe have it in the record in november of two thousand and eight there they basically say ok we need thirteen more months we just needed the documents in october to verify in total the government have these documents for thirty four months so let's do the math if you have these documents as of november of two thousand and eight that would make it december of two thousand and nine well in two thousand and ten the judge reset the case twice because she had all the cases to do she said on january nineteenth reset it to september  i believe september fifteenth on those two occasions never did the judge ask or request whereas this forensic report i gave you continuance and they requested a continuance as well so the government attorneys in that case should have a report so let's look if those documents you can use just about absence make your last point my last point is that if given an opportunity there is compelling enough evidence to remain in this case back down in order for a fair fa hours they stopped on and off asking questions and did beat her then the next day they for two hours the same officers beat her again and said do not go back and tell the rest of those business people that we're corrupt that what we're doing is corrupt may please the court matthew george for the attorney general the totality of the circumstances in this case does not compel the conclusion that petitioners credible the agency identified seven specific cogent consistencies and discrepancies even if these are so called minor and consistencies and discrepancies when aggregated and viewed in light of the total circumstances they undermine petitioners credibility they are not trivial in that they concern petitioners identity and the existence of her business the record does not compel the agency to accept petitioners or in some cases solian purely her coun excuses and explanations some of which coming directly from petitioner are little more than i don't know why this is inconsistent the court must consider all of the and consistencies in the totality there are seven but they must be considered together however just practically we must go through them one one by the first relates to the closure of petitioners business she testified that the government closed it in july of two thousand and five despite her business license saying it expires on june third first two thousand and five she testified that she had to have her business license on her business location at all times her explanation for the inconsistency of why she had an expired business license was that the government the chinese government renewed business licenses in december issue things after the spring festival which would be consistent with the issuance in april of two thousand of her business license however she failed to explain why her license was not reissued in two thousand and five due to its upcoming expiration she also explained that the government does things arbitrarily quoting her what time they want to issue this kind of stuff we wouldn't have a say in it and that's at page one have the record she then explained that these policies were decided decided by the by them whenever they said she was also not responsive to questions about this issue on pages one twenty eight  just tell her that what she was talking about had nothing to do with the question that was being asked and that basically it was a substance of cross examination question both on page one twenty nine and page one thirty one she was twice informed that what she was talking about had nothing to do with the question it was asked her next inconsistency has to do with her own statement that the business license must specify the floor on which the business was located looking at the face of the license it does not have a floor on it that was not something that the government or the immigration judge brought up or raised that was her own testimony that the floor would be on the license when she was  asked to explain why does not have the floor she changed her explanation to say it would only have the address that's first she was though why is there such a big deal because it goes to whether her business existed iran or whether this license shows that she actually was an operations and they are you saying she never had of this that that's one possibility the agency so what she's testifying to is not worthy of weight no different than say a jury issues is not to give weight to a witness's testimony in any sort of trial and that's a good point to to look at this this adverse credibility finding it's more like a jury saying look these these inconsistencies they may seem small looked at one by one but looking at them together as there bu delegated authority to the agency decision makers who have decided this case and this case is about enforcement of immigration laws this is the petitioner here conceded that she has violated immigration laws by overstaying her visa now it may seem whatever concerns the court may have in this individual case will be different in general passed with enforcing the overall system and so if we are not adhering to that system consistently and fairly in each case it undermines the entire system counsel mentioned a substantial continuance given at the government's request to conduct forensic testing and you deluded earlier to a possible theory that perhaps she never had the business up at all was there any evidence presented any forensic testing on these documents found by the government i know that i'm aware of your honor i don't believe that that's in the record and it's not really about whether these documents are genuine and authentic that's not the finding the agency made it's more about looking at the documents and comparing them to what she testified to she's saying one thing for example with regard to the floor of the business she herself is saying the blossoms would have the floor on it and then we're looking at what she's saying is that her actual license and it doesn't have a floor on it there was that a big deal people made little mistakes all the time absolutely your honor but there are seven of them that the agency pointed to he these things build up as the court has stated ensure us a aggregation of even so called minor inconsistencies and discrepancies when aggregated does undermine credibility and that's as we think about any registry was not permanent and that freelance work is not listed on it now this is in conflict with the fact that it was issued in two thousand and four still listing an occupation she had in one thousand nine hundred one the next one is that she paid the two hundred thousand and one for her business but had no receipt this is another fact she herself brought up she said that they did not first to she testify they did not provide any sort of receipt then later she said yes i did receive a note inconsistency in that she first said it didn't exist now she says it does the next document is her son's birth documents where it states that she was forty three when at that time she would have been forty nine her explanation was simply a mistake and i don't know why it's inconsistent that document goes to her identity showing who who is she the next one is the discrepancy between the number on her identification card and and her household registry more recent document her passport has the same identification number as her id card whereas the household registry was issued between those two documents with a different number she disappeared for explanation was should be the same so if it's that i don't know it should be the same she provided herself no actual evidence or testimony regarding that explanation her attorney provided some speculation about why those numbers are down which are pretty close to wanting to they're clo in to actually go over the issue of the council had raised the major issues such as it designating the second floor versus third floor which is kind of a minor and the birth certificate here's a document that's being offered to show a relationship between her and her son not purporting anything towards her claim so it was issued by someone a hospital which your husband went to go get and she doesn't know why the mistake was as far as the other issues that we've seen on that are the six of them the major one that i see that the judge fails to actually address is basically that the documents were taken into custody and these documents would have shown of the business license i mean all of them were taken in on april fifteenth there was a about fifteen documents taken in her household registry her id the business license all of these were original documents that were taken in if given th chance and remained back down i'm quite sure with this report would prove that this is these are real documents and if had a chance these minute actual inconsistency were not looked that in the t circumstances as i raised in raising the fact that when she was issued the business license between the second and third floor she thought she was explaining she had more property rights now and that they would have to issue saying that this new law this license is going to say i own this portion now whereas before there's a distinction that she only was renting it and she stablished in the record more so that there was more corruption going on every month i mean