the judges that the the medical records was filed was not filed until wire to the hearing i don't think that's the you have a justifiable conclusion because that the the rules of the  he thought that the mother his mother must send a wrong medical record if you stated that to he he was treated at a different hospital different health facilities and and the days were close and the days were close to will be a claimed injuries he explained to god if the date was wrong or the facility was wrong it was different from what was claimed that his mother sent the wrong  medical director and also the injuries were similar and there is no evidence there is no evidence in the record that anybody fabricated that document but the judge jumped said ten seventeen it is impossible for a young man to do a simple to accurately state to the number of police officers will came to the scene and also because he received treatment at different fabricated anything he received his documentation from his parents and also the the judge also said oh your last supporting documents that you oppress practiced religion in china but he has a letter you have said that from his parents saying that he was practice practicing the christian religion and because of that he was detained he was injured and also the judge also at the claims that there is no there was no evidence here in the united states supporting his claim of practicing religion in this country but he did have a letter  review the credibility of finding us well he testified to the details of the mistreatment and also the dates and also the on two occasions he was here was th so credibility problems and as we point out you know our brief indeed it is riddled with credibility problems and i won't spend time on the small maneuver show of those but i do want to address a couple of points that we believe are false hoods that both support the credibility finding to address credibility finding and also support the implementation of the the finding of frivolous as application so you're not taking a position it's a matter of law that if credibility finding can't be refuted by this court case then you're just saying it's a high bar indeed it's a high bar that we can review i just wrote down mr must statement that petitioner may have testified inconsistently and then i have an ellipsis so that's my starting point and i would just i would like to emphasize two or three points from the record from this case right because of course every inconsistency doesn't matter he's testifying probably in two thousand and eleven if not after and testifying about things that happened two years ago so if he had just said both times a lot of police officers you wouldn't worry about whether it was ten or seventeen yes your honor indeed i think it's completely trivial to me i respect that that you find that trivial and in the post real idea act world you know we believe our position is that any inconsisten centers on the factual contention that petitioner made in his written statement of twenty eleven which was signed and notarized in which he said regarding the march two thousand and ten alleged incident that he was tortured again and again and that he received from from the beings he received he had a cerebral concussion and this is a bedrock sort of factual contention for his overall claim but when but when he's asked about this cerebral concussion by the immigration judge he says no that wasn't true so for us that is a major false what so why doesn't i mean doesn't this get down to this december twenty eighth two thousand and nine case record because the copy of that in the record in translation at least i'm certainly not didn't read the chinese but where it says diagnose opinion one might brain concussion and then there's various medications rest for him and so on so if he's just gotten to the year wrong you know he remembers at some point he got to a brain concussions that really the context of a claim that he was beaten on two occasions separated by three or four months and the written the written statement is made about a year after right one he says he got a concussion i mean we read a lot about concussions these days i guess you know the n f l it turns out they're all getting concussions and other things so i'm not sure that people know that they have a concussion well without a doctor telling them well fair point he but he presented that as a factual sort of right and we have a medical record that says he got one maybe two dates or a little off well the dates are off if if i didn't turn now he claims otherwise that the incident in december what happened on december twentieth the medical record is the dated december twenty eighth and when he's asked about it he immediately starts talking about immediately starts talking about having been detained and they beat me every day in detention and the soon as i was out of attention i proceeded to i proceeded for treatment and the immigration judge says retained in two thousand  no i wasn't detained in two thousand and so he's asked about the medical record that he tendered into evidence just two weeks prior one would expect that with the aid of counsel and he's got written records and represented throughout this whole time that he should be familiar with his own evidence  and he immediately starts talking about the two thousand and ten incident so on pon further examination we would submit that his entire credibility crumbles around the december twenty eight medical record in that he is questioned about the treatment he received received so after he says that after he testifies that he received treatment after having been detained which is not the case not not supported in other parts of the structure the immigration judge says well we're we're we're did you receive treatment december twentieth and december twenty eighth he says oh yes i did and then he says that he went to a local  clinic and we and what they gave him didn't work in a week later he went to a large hospital but he affirmatively says i didn't receive any documentation from the local clinic but the record in question is the document from the local cook local clinic it's not from the larger documentary evidence that he presents is not voluminous it was presented two weeks prior to his merits hearing someone presume he would have familiarity with it and when he tries to explain that evidently maybe there were three medical records the only presented one he said two different things one he said i did ask for the other whichever other he was referring to then mailed it but it must have gotten lost in the mail and the other thing he said was my mother center on record then goes on a tale of an explanation of why his mother sent the wrong record was because when he was in high school he had a tendency to get in fights and he got in a fight one day and the headmaster told his mother to come pick him up and she came she rushed to it's a complete came up it was in a car accident i mean that goes you know if it's just it's laptop and take this seriously but it's a laughable explanation that she was in a car accident and she had some neurological surgeries and sense that time she has problems that's why i can't tell you a straight story about a medical record that says pace patient presents on december twenty eighth at nine ten in the morning with dizziness vomiting it says that he was in a fight prepared one hour previous and is diagnosed them like concussion so that december twenty ninth two thousand and nine medical record we would contend unravels all of his credibility and because there is so little in this record and this would otherwise be one of the pillars of his claim of having been persecuted we we believe that it duly supports we believe also is another fabrication and false it and the last the last point that i would to braise is the letter comported lee written by a father from his parents which starts out you know i evidently written but supposedly written by his father i'm a pious christian so in the name of jesus christ the everything i say here is true he then goes on to say in this letter that  his son he wants his son to escape the persecution in china to a big christian country where people like us who are christian won't be persecuted well when petitioners asked is your father christian says no he's not a christian so  did you suffer broken bones they said no i didn't as explanation as you know maybe my father exaggerated a little bit well i think a broken bone you know there's gradations in there shading and then there's a complete exact complete fabrication and we believe that the press and the issue comes through whether there was any fabrication on the part of the this young man i mean for he said a little bit differently i would say it's whether a rational immigration judge could s conclude you know obviously you're drawing inferences from a record and different people may draw different inferences but the reason we have a deferential standard of review is that we in a sense give the benefit of the doubt to the original fact finder judge draw the inference that he's not being candid or to minimum draw the inference that the evidence isn't sufficient to support the claim of persecution that's a that's a softer finding that might leave this result in