on account of china's course of population control policies specifically the titian it was forced to have a petition his wife was forced to have an abortion on three separate occasions twice before petitioner left for the restaurant in one thousand nine hundred eighty when the government suspected that officials wife had become pregnant again they came to the restaurant asked position of the producers wife within three days when he did not produce his wife within three days they return  the restaurant closed down arrested him detain him and harm him because they believe that he and his wife had intentionally violated the government's course of population control policies know that a couple of them came in on student visas i'm really not familiar with how the other or i'm assuming the court if you're talking about the nine eleven bombing what we actually do your honor the petitioner was actually shown the picture during the wreck examination indian guy he identified the picture as a picture of his house and also translated himself translation came from the petition it wasn't there wasn't the concern that if if we don't believe the petitioner why would why should the immigration judge believe his translation of the translation also the translation also  section three point three the regulations was a was a basis for her position what she said she says she chooses not to believe or accept the photograph right that is for is that an abuse of discretion given the fact that you're the fisher didn't comply that it may not necessarily be substantial evidence to rely upon the fact that somebody obtained fraudulent entry to the united states to find them not credible but at some point don't we have to give some deference to the finder of fact who cites a host of deficiencies in the evidence that the petitioner introduces as a basis for discrediting the over to the response council the grounds for the judge's findings fall into basically four categories the judges speculation about what the what the court or what the government should have done unclear testimony this is regarding his detention in manner of this case that the judge never gave him an opportunity to explain and all four of these categories are found under the circumstances faced in this case cannot constitute substantial evidence sufficient his claim to have been punished for having a second child but at the same time being permitted to open a restaurant seems to be inconsistent with the government wanted to punish somebody that they were i number of impossibilities about that first saw that there would be and i'm security window in a restroom an attention facility for one thing secondly that he would be allowed to use the restroom frequently without any kind of an about the beans i think of the kid who the the question that the immigration judge and the problem of the immigration judge had about the d v d issue was that mr g was not giving me any information about how we got the visa the immigration drugs and the immigration lawyer were trying to get some information from him about how we obtained it and he kept saying i don't know my friend got he he didn't give any information am not telling the truth about what happened to them in china that out so this i go through this record and i focus on family planning issues sold here he has testified concerning facts relating to that we say that he qualifies under the family planning rule and sent it back to the exercise by the attorney general of whether you sell its will first son because he hasn't met his burden of showing that he has a credible no obligation to review health but when somebody carries the burden of proof with testimony and it appears on its face credible then the government has a burden of proof of going forward with contrary evidence and you if you admit to me that you did not present any contrary evidence that told that's where i find myself and you tell me where i'm wrong well i would with all due respect i think where you're wrong your honor is that understand your argument if we conclude that his testimony is credible even if it's only as to that part relating to family planning then you would concede that the government finding that now he was not credible three man attack to further her further proceedings number one on whether he is credible on those specific claims and number two if credible van whether or not he qualifies for asylum under the family planning an individual story is not credible and not possible and that goes to veer and veer entire testimony and he was not he was not probable and not credible with respect to whether or not they were his wife still receiving a spike and after after he was he didn't it give it seems to me that somebody in for government wants to punish somebody they would not terminate them from their job and he pain but are when i was i would i would disagree with with the characterization that everybody is treated the same but in any event there were other other factors that in addition to  immigration court that this court and supreme court and made it very clear that he is the reasonable people can disagree on what the evidence means but as long as there is some evidence to support by the immigration service which this court did reject however there were several still that world substantiated substantiated and therefore because there were some given by the immigration judge were not sufficient there were years were still some that were sufficient and for that reason should affirm the court's ok thank you very much  never given an opportunity to is to explain or even asked whether or not he knew why there were no bars on the windows i would just suggest to the court that there is at least one possible explanation and one other case that i have it w enclosed compound the respond in that case had actually made arrangements to write that the guard to open up the outer gate that is why there was no bar on the window because that the bars and the barbed wire actually on the wall surrounding the compound we don't know if that's true in this case because the response was never given an opportunity to provide an additional explanation regarding have and of course the circuit holds that under those circumstances such an adverse credibility fine is not supported by