and then later on he included more details as to what this intense pressure included which was speeding by his employer for the more mr jenner gave a reason for why little details were not included in the initial i five eighty nine which was hiding however mr ginn explained in his original i five eighty nine that he attempted to register his child because this was the only way that she would be able to receive government benefits like education and health care and as according to to register his child they just asked him whether he went and what happened there but not why and this region does provide this reason for why it went it that he wanted to be able to give his daughter benefits from the government n would be able to rely on prior knowledge or prior experience however he would need to state that in his opinion that this is what he's basing his opinion on because without that we don't know what he's basing his opinion on it could be on past experience it could be on a gut feeling and we don't and we don't know so we don't have the substantial evidence standard being met there because we're just not sure what he's basing his opinion on whether it be on past experience or that sort of thing so there's possibly a deficiency because he didn't say enough about why as the example you've used he didn't have any interview or discussion with the consulate before he got  experience in your regulations require or it's customary for yes your honor he could have said i you know i know from experience or from foreign affairs manuals or whatever it may be this is how  population growth policy that he would also be entitled to this holding then yes you are he should be as it is more likely than not that he will be persecuted if he's returned to china and in addition he and his wife did to have been filed after may eleventh two thousand and five now each of the contradictions around possibilities may be subject to several inferences the court's task is to determine whether the immigration judges inferences are supported by the record he didn't identify just one doubts he didn't identify several doubts about the petitioners credibility the admission of the bidding and his initial asylum application is probably the most glaring omission and it's not at all a minor detail because one of the things that makes this difficult about whether you filled out your paperwork correctly or put correct dates were completed it there's a language problem my understanding is that all of the paperwork that the immigration judge found to have discrepancies or not be complete was completed in english obviously completed by someone other than mr jin but based on a translation know he didn't fill out the papers because the papers were in english right so someone obviously had to read the papers to him and translate his response or decide what parts of his responses to include in the application we know a third party was involved yes so how can the vision of things from an application that he can't read in this goes to the someone help me fill it out i told them what happened to me so we presume he told them what happened he didn't mention being beaten and they told him please don't put that on there it doesn't matter and then he gets a new lawyer yes that doesn't matter it's it's possible to assume that he was given that advice and that advice was legally correct it's also possible to assume as the immigration judge did in this case that that omission taken together with all the other problems support a finding that he was incredible just look at the guy and he said i find him to be a sort of articulate and detail oriented he made an assessment of how he presents himself in the courtroom an immigration judge said that i don't buy what he says that he was told to them at this issue for the court judge didn't weigh the merits of his assertions to determine whether he as a matter of law he had been persecuted in the past or whether as a matter of luck at a well founded fear future persecution the immigration judge basically cut him off and said i'll find you credible based on all the very credible therefore all of his testimony is unbelievable now there's nothing there really to support his claim but if he really is credible then what he testified to would have to be taken as true and if our case was he was taking as true the facts to which he testified he has established his eligibility for asylum if that's our case what point would there be in relating it to be well if that's if that's the case for my understanding is that the support hasn't spoken on the issue of asylum or withholding yet that immigration noticed once again thank you to the university of santa clara and