long may it please the court mr yong was persecuted on account of his resistance to chinese coercive family planning policy the immigration judges negative credibility determination was predicated upon an erroneous reading of the record and a failure to consider the testimonies actually occur i'll start with what the judge found to be most important which was the alleged discrepancies between the type of harm suffered in the treatment raise mystery one received at the hospital over the course two months the immigration judge explicitly and specifically stated that mr yoo on never testified that he received a blood transfusion before surgery however the eleventh circuit's reasoning in greek you know is highly relevant here that is to say we're parsing words we're talking about two different possible interpretations of words and the words that mystery once said were never actually considered or analyzed whatsoever by the immigration judge that is specifically  mystery one on peach three twenty seven was asked if he had just received an i v and other minor treatment he said yes at the beginning i be in stitches he said at the beginning and then he began to discuss x rays crushed bones  page three thirty very important mystery i was again asked about the treatment he received and he said i received an i v with protein because of the loss of blood he never said the words blood transfusions but the immigration judge never considered whether that in layman's terms meant a blood transfusion proteins because of the loss of a lot of blood so this is not an instance where the human rishon judge considered that statement said well i just miss it and find that doesn't mean blood transfusion the immigration judge simply didn't consider it didn't mention it didn't discuss it no where in the immigration judge's decision was or a discussion of the word proteins whether that was mr you won an individual with a fifth grade education and that was his way of explaining a blood transfusion similarly on page three sixty one mystery once and specifically on my hand when they refer to the police cut me they cut the thing so they are referring to the doctors have to open up and find the veins he never said the word surgery but again the immigration judge gives no consideration whether this is a layman's description of surgery again no mention whatsoever of saying the doctors cut him open and had to find the vents and this description is entirely consistent with a description of a surgical procedure which would therefore match the medical records that were provided which indicate he received a blood transfusion as well as surgery and this word that i gather everybody's treating the medical records is reliable here right yes  i'm trying to think of any reason the person who's been beaten up getting that the abusive treatment and seeking asylum in the united states with him for minimizing the did the government make the argument that the immigration judge thought that is it the there was an inconsistency well there certainly was confusing parts of his testimony i won't dispute that and the government argued that he was inconsistent immigration judge found that he was not credible but the key i mean specifically on this issue that is he didn't answer here he did or he didn't have a transfusion or he did know they'd be the government defended the immigration judge's decision but this was never specifically addressed in closing arguments or anything like that before the immigration judge so the immigration judge again the key is not that he balanced of this testimony or weighed this testimony in analyzed it and said well i find this is not a reference to surgical procedure or i find that you know describing i need blood look i need proteins because of what loss is not a reference to a blood transfusion the immigration judge said he never mentioned blood transfusion and he never mentioned surgery and therefore didn't analyze the specific testimony  the same goes also the error of the and this is all being translated to yes your honor and what what mr yuan said on one brief to the board appeal was he didn't know these words he didn't understand these words he didn't know that the chinese word for surgery now was what was raised in the brief two to the board of immigration appeals which is a little education a fifth grader sixth grade education i believe he had a total of five and a half years of education it's and on believe around page by the like of education and the language difficulty we would agree on or and that's also why we would highlight the fact that when asked on page three twenty seven again this is the first time he's discussing the treatment he received did you just receive stitches in an i and he says at first and then if you read you follow his testimony he then continues to describe the next raise he talks about the vein the nerve damage the bones being crushed this is where he's trying to describe all the things that happen and again this is treatment that he received over the course of two months and it doesn't appear to be in doubt that he's alleged consistently that he was in the hospital for two months and it would not make sense as the judge found ironically that doesn't make sense that he would only receive and i'd be in stitches get need to be hospitalized for two months but that's obviously explained by the fact that he needed these additional treatments and he had nerve damage any facts described then needing physical therapy over the course of an additional six months after he was released from the hospital his brother you know and that's something that's certainly not technical in any sense of the word like a drug blood transfusion is the idea the honest explanation which i think he eventually gets to is his brother's undocumented and he didn't want his brother's whereabouts to be known he didn't want to expose a relative who's in the united states to the tension going through what he's going to rebut is very nearly yes but i would assert th that inconsistency i understand it is troubling that he would do that the first point is is that we cannot be certain that the immigration judge would reach a negative credibility termination on that basis alone how do we scrub the other errors from the findings that that basis alone at the very least would need to remain to determine whether him providing accurate information about the whereabouts of the brother would be sufficient to reach negative credibility determination and secondly while the real i d act allows for an immigration judge to base parents statements from his sister we have all this information contained in the record considering as a whole i would submit that they are providing an accurate information about where the whereabouts of an undocumented brother would be insufficient to reach negative conflict on the face about whether it was harassed as workplace and this gets away from any sort of confusion about medical terms or anything of that nature of page one seventh or ten seventy six of the records it is a dent into his asylum application that the family of planning officials continue to harass me by coming to my workplace and question me there is wealth and he goes on to provide an archive detail of an argument he had with them at work three times in the record in this test y for before the immigration judge she said unequivocally that that did not happen the pitch three forty seven the judge said ok again did you speak to the family planning office or your workplace answer no ok now in your statement it says that the agents continue harass me by coming to my workplace and question me there did this happen yes or no in which he answered no this goes to the very heart of his claim as to what kind of persecution he suffered in china the second contradiction this was clear by the face doesn't clear up this contradiction about them squashing him as work for the second contradiction is on the face of the record is about his brother page three thirty three the record do you live with your brother answered no then the judge reminded petitioner that he's sworn you are sworn to tell the truth answer yes then page three thirty six where does he live then sir you answer yes in indiana question with you answer yes so this concession of the lie was petitioners counsel has admitted to is sufficient to so little that could be good we also have the immigration judge killing us that the most important consideration was the testimony of the extent of his medical treatment is that the government's position first of all that this beating did not happen your honor it's our position that we don't know what happened based on the adverse credibility whether the attack happened on account of a protected basis in this case has assured the opinion is it your contention that if there was some other reason for it it's our contention that we don't know what based on the average credibility what the motivation was  you were dishonest he would have had to minimize his treatment i don't think he had it's hard for me to speculate about that too on this issue i would point your attention to his contradicting statements on redirect so how this case unfolded as on direction in his statements he didn't make any explanation of the medical treatment he received we have of course the hospital so then on cross examination government counsel asked him about it and then we have this exchange and then on redirect this counsel tried to rehabilitate his testimony and i think that the consistent consistency i would point your direct your attention to is on page three fifty nine of the record on redirect where petitioner first tells us counsel that he did receive a blood transfusion or did receive blood not transfusion did receive blood and then second on the same page said i can't remember if i received blood so i point your attention to that page three fifty nine of the record so that basis within his own testimony is regarded as is there any doubt that he did receive blood transfusions in the in the extent of the medical treatment you know order to try to make the strength of the single claim i'm just mystified in this one while i think the immigration judge was as well and that's why they continue to ask these questions about why there was these is consisten having trouble understanding one that was a previous interpreter your honor who they so they had a whole set of hearing and then they at the end the immigration judge and the inter has a discussion determined that interpreter was having a hard time understanding so they set that entire testimony aside they said for a new case years later they found one they could understand him well your honor i would point your attention to so the immigration judge was very careful with the second interpreter to make sure that the understanding was there so if you look at page immigration or there were several right this is the last immigration judge who issued the opinion he took that most recent last one was brisk and then and two fifty eight of the record again asked our time petition if you don't understand the question sir please just say i don't understand so i think it with the record shows that they were very cognizant of some translation that there could be translation issues but this and no where in this testimony the second testimony did petitioner say i think you know  this translation is working i can understand there was some issue with the volume at which petitioner was speaking to the translator which the judge addressed to make sure that that free flow of information and of the problems of the it to be very very where he situation to even know whether there was a translation problem or it could be your honor and that's why i did my best to show you these very stark contrasts on the record and especially with whether his if they came to the harassment his workplace that question was asked in three different ways or three different times the answer was always no he always contradicted his previous statement side and i said that goes to the very heart of his asylum point because it's trying to show why the plots ti family planning officials were going to extra legal means to persecute him and so that's the very heart of their their motivation for for attacking him i gather you're not really relying on the confusion about how exactly he got to the hospital and that's a pretty tough ground for this credibility finding if you're at one of the four i think is the weakest of the four i think that i think the reason why the brother so they  judge was asking or your brother is pretty calm and i think one of the reasons is that he could clear that up he was an eyewitness to the attack into clear that up sure there is but yeah that one is a little more a little more difficult because of the way the words that were used by the family in the letters i don't think the immigration judge was wrong to look at that but if that's not the only thing you know you look at the record as a whole we have these three strong conflicts that i point your direction to and so we would ask  capricious but i would take it one step further and i would state that even if the credibility determination was found to be sufficiently warranted in the record remained would still be required for the corroboration issue the board of  appeals declined to address the issue of whether the crab ration was sufficient on appeal because they said the credibility determination was outcome dispositive and while this court abrams said that an immigration judge can require cor credible testimony the opposite is also true that is that corroboration can rehabilitate otherwise incredible testimony in this instance the immigration judge did not discuss many of the corroborating documents and we would assert you know improperly dismissed some of them for mr mistaking the facts for example mr you want to explain that he is no longer in touch with his ex girlfriend and therefore couldn't get a letter from her but he did also get documentation showing that they were fine he got documentation showing that his ex girlfriend was required to report for a pregnancy checkup and he received other medical documentation that was not mentioned or discussed or you know and anyway dressed by the immigration judge as to whether or not it rehabilitated mystery ones otherwise look at the statement in his asylum application which is on page one of the seven six of the record where he mentions that there was this workplace harassment it comes in a paragraph dealing with the harassment that actually occurred at his home were the reference to him also having issues at his workplace was a digression from the description of the events that occurred at his home that one sentence though seems to be rather specific about that happening at work it doesn't it  can it certainly can be read either way if you do the actual sentence is that the he's talking about his home they continue to harass me but i'm with my workplace and questioning me there as well and so what he's saying is that they went talk to his boss and ask questions about his boss but the actual confrontation between him in the end and the officials in that paragraph that's being discussed is about the confrontation that occurred in his home and that's why when he was describing it on testimony said no they just