ok briefly tell us the events that led to arrest him ninety nine when he answers briefly as he's asked to do he says when the police raided our house and i was at the house they arrested me that that is exactly what he was asked to do to growth briefly describe what happened and to hold that against him and find that that makes him not credible is is not correct what about the honor i didn't i didn't find that there were discrepancies and that's i think that if you get into specifics of what they allege or discrepancies that they're that they're not really there when you want those because if i recall for example they i j pointed out the fact that you know that the testimony about the father was attacked because he was at this political rally and then there were other but then no he was away was not there at a political rally so would you yes you know talk to us about those because that seems to me that would go to the heart of the matter in that in that particular instance  singh have been away he had run away after being detained by the police there and he'd been gone for six months he the police came to his father's house and he wasn't there and  detained his father the mr singh never said that he was at the house on that day all he said in the transcript was that he was not there on that day and i believe that it's an improper interpretation of what you to indicate that that he meant that he had been at that house on that day he said what about the fact that the country report seems to indicate that things have gotten better for minorities there in the punjab i i can't you know we can't really address that  we we feel like there's been a big mistake on the credibility and that this should be returned to and i j for further for further evidence regarding his credibility maybe i could ask you about a couple of other things i mean i sympathetic to your argument here because it's hard to identify one you know sort of independently sufficient reason gave that can that would support the adverse credibility term issue but there are about eight different factors which maybe if you isolated any one of them it wouldn't be enough but together it just seems to so so one of them is for example just the weird thing about  issue about his prior application he came to new york city in one thousand nine hundred two he didn't speak any english he went to a lawyer and this lawyer prepared in the cylon application or he six years later he goes to an asylum interview six years later the first thing he says to these i'm officer is this is incorrect my prior lawyer messed it up and by the way that asylum officer found him credible and he  did the same thing with immigration court the first thing he said was this was incorrect it's an indication of his honesty if if he were going to be deceitful he he he would not have come clean about that and then there's another instance of that when you know when the immigration when he's being asked to authenticate a letter from his father he's asking is this your father sitting sure he very honestly says no when he says about his political activities in one thousand nine hundred one he didn't do anything after that and then later the father's arrest in ninety two when he says oh well he was arrested and i was away from home at a political rally that answer we wanted to boycott these elections question what did you do about this answer we didn't vote that's right now but that's different then he says when his father said so first he says i didn't do anything then he said i did  uttered but then he says he was a political rally in ninety two i think he sat that is not doing nothing i thinking later on in this he he says what did you during that six months he says i went to some rallies and you know said the slogans so he he may have gone through a rally with his friends during this time but i don't think that that's and when he left went back and look at each of the cited portions of the transcript then to me that the story is exactly consistent it's just that i think the immigration judge got confused about what he was trying to say so maybe you what i'm saying is that there is no inconsistency so if you want to try to explain why you think in fact what he said to just give me the page and so i can look at this because i read it and i didn't see the testimony being inconsistent yes or all his testimony is internally  home village he left his parents hold right after his arrest in one thousand nine hundred one and he never returned he didn't return until well he didn't return at all before he left the work i'm just waiting for you to tell me what page to look at yes you are f he was out campaigning with his friends of the boycott election that's his affidavit on page seven seventy four he testified that he was with his relatives address first of all rests and they're actually a part of that's on page one forty two to one forty three at another point he claimed that he was staying with his relatives  but he once in a while you went stayed with friends a couple days that's on page one sixty five to sixty six either way his account doesn't square there either he was at home at his father's home and he wasn't present when the police came because he was out with his friends campaigning at  g but from time to time i would stay with friends or other relatives i was moving around constantly but he he was pretty consistent saying i was mainly staying with this one relative and it's not that he was staying at his father so that doesn't square with his explanation for why he friends which suggests that he was for two days and missing the police because he was out campaigning and again this was confusing he had a full explanation he was asked to explain sorry i mean i'm just i'm trying to give you a chance to help me through th place his story was that he was he was in hiding and he wasn't at home anymore he never went back on his claim is i mean he's written materials was that he wasn't there simply because he was out campaigning with it with his friends not that he was in hiding with with other relatives not that he was doing anything else he just was fortuitous and happy he just wasn't home because he was up campaigning at that time it's not a suggestion that he was out hiding with relatives and that's why the police didn't find him at that time and again it's also inconsistent with respect to  between one ghastly on one thirty four do you know what happened with this correction as part of the testimony that was missing but it was just closing arguments i'm looking at the yes a copy that has it says as indiscernible and says we didn't do anything after that it's crossed out judge gave specific and concrete examples of mr singh's lacking testimony for example use x to describe the circumstances of his arrest and he replied when they raided the house i was at the house in the house and they arrested me another example might be when he was asked what he did for the party he said whenever they were programs i went to the rounds what did you do he did you do anything else he replied no and again this is exacerbated by his  memorized plane rather than actually providing details from memory his assertion that he's a he was still at risk was implausible in light of the country conditions the known country conditions in evidence in the record the country reports documents were or why they were submitted they were simply not authenticated and again that does go to the credibility determination mostly because of his other documentary problems the submission am i i see your point she's the heart of this claim that's why we're kind of pressing hard on these i think it's minor and i think it's also a transcript of a tape that that is has been interpreted and was originally found to be not valid except the parties agreed on the final version didn't say they did yes yes thank you thank you case just argued saying versus holder will be said men thank you both for your argument this morning