it down to one reason which was the alleged conflict of testimony between the applicant and his son who has been granted asylum for the service previously both father and son were members of the opposition political party nor and there was some discrepancy over the son i'm speaking at the meetings and the rallies it was confusion in the testimony other than the difference between the heart of the coin is what happened to the father right right right and he very next just between whether the son spoke at the hearing at the meeting or didn't speak at the hearing and what happened to the father and the harm he suffered no your honor i don't i don't believe so i mean the fact that there was a political affiliation is important but whether he spoke and what was said was really not important it was stated repeatedly the father was more of a financial supporter of the political party and the son was the more the political outspoken  student leader and then after after college on to you know being an activist and you know what i'm offering you have the government offer any evidence at the immigration hearing that suggested that  what happened with the father did not occur no no and also the father submitted the political party membership card there was never any evidence that that was not a valid document it was accepted in evidence by the court pressure the local officials put to basically steal his store from him because he was an opposition member and also they were looking for his son after the son came to the united states first the government the local officials who were persecuting him administrative record page two eighteen is that he was prosecuted and subjected to all kinds of torments because of his political activities as a party member he did not limit his activities to merely writing checks out and so forth there are looking for a sentence from the government that started something like this ok the reason this whether the son spoke at the meeting or not goes to the heart of the coin because finish the sentence because it calls into question whether the leak petitioner was a member of the north party and was persecuted because of his political opinion he produced a membership card and i was looking throughout the entire record i could not find  him that is that is one of the discrepancies that the government wants the discrepancy i'm still looking for you to tell us how it goes to the heart of the coin well there's also inconsistent you have to look at both n i stick on this one we believe that a reasonable fact finder could conclude tax that big when the son claims that he never spoke at the public square in the father claimed that he did witness his son speak at the public square that there is that you consistency calls into question what does that have to do with whether he was persecuted run out of his business etc because of these forces believing that he was part of this political move because your son spoke at the meeting today he did invite my record is clear they were doing it because of his affiliation with the group right well they were looking apparently looking for a stone under what on one occasion and on the other occasion demanded he he turned over his store i'm not sure i don't know if there's explicit evidence that they that they that they did that action because he was a member of the north of the party it could have been some sort of economic shakedown i don't know if there's me that there is not evidence either way that suggests to me that there is no evidence well there were even a question in the immigration hearing where the government lawyer said isn't it true this was because  at this are the kinds of differences in memory or testimony that are consistent with truthfulness and the kinds that are not this difference between the following the son about whether he was provoked at a particular rally or not isn't that the kind of thing that is perfectly consistent with different memories different concentrations from differ witnesses and even frankly is not the kind of statement that even the same witness at different points  actually me is the kind of difference in recollection and there's a perfectly compatible with honesty in good faith we we all get things wrong remember the things that are really important the stuff that's important marks in our memory but testimony as to the length of the readings it was about an hour the number of people who showed up at the meeting she said fifty to sixty and the frequency of the meetings monthly the son was questioned where meetings were held and he said they were held in the hall of an education center and a public square he was also asked flatly were meetings ever held anywhere else and he said no they've got a flat inconsistency between the testimony of father and the testimony the sign regarding where the meetings were held which i believe a reasonable fact finder can look at that discrepancy and say look if someone's truly a member of an organization claims of attended ten meetings six of which were at this were at this editor's office and gave very detailed testimony as to what took place at those meetings and that testimony flatly contradicted by the son who was granted asylum and the incredible that that inconsistency at the inconsistency about saying is don't speak at public meetings c do well the father the son by by both both testimonies the son was more involved in the party than the father was i think both of them agreed about that and the son was asked flat out you know are meetings held any were other then the whole of an education center in the public square and he said no they're not and that certainly i think could lead a reasonable fact finder to conclude that the father was being untruthful about attending the because the son test applied live the quaters hearing i believe he did yes was he asked about the inconsistency you just spoke i don't know if i don't think the attorney specifically asked look this is wh your father testified what's your testimony on this matter he was stuart case law pretty clear that if the government doesn't do that it's a inconsistency that cannot be relied upon i am not aware of lawyer to say your father says there were meetings that x in you testified there were meetings there were not meetings that x can you explain that and that never happened that i don't believe in my view the record i do not remember that ever being asked believe that they specifically ask questions to elicit an answer that would be very clear as to whether the father was was testifying truthfully but i don't recall them ever ask follow up saying look your father testif and i have asked that question they be thirty times anytime somebody said anything other than no they got in trouble yeah you go right ahead if you want to well  whatever he may want to say that's fine thank you thank you just argued will be submitted for decision in will proceed from immigration to civil procedure and will consider national pain into buildings versus the south coast air quality management district