i like the way he stood up and then sat down again so that will think that someone else is as our country judge in colorado used to say you're still under oath good morning good morning your honor very demeanor conclusions and alleged inconsistent specifically the demeanor finding based respondents quote unquote is just not supported by the record as was stated in her brief there's plenty of case law that requires an immigration judge to give specific examples but didn't the immigration judge and then since tense note that first said it appeared to be memorized because it followed i exactly the language of the declaration and then to the extent of making a mistake that he later said there was something different but he stuck with the language of the declaration and testified and then the it's kind of a bit through the rock and a hard spot if you're too consistent basis to believe you if you're inconsistent that's a basis not to believe you i mean but that's not our that's not our standard we're looking for and you said that that i j my question was you said the i j a didn't provide any reasons for the demeanor finding and i don't think that's accurate from the record you may say these these findings are not sufficient or they're not  immigration court hearing his attorney who he's comfortable with who certainly prepared him for the hearing is likely asking the same question asked during this preparation so certainly he feel more comfortable to provide testimony and it appears from the record that he was asked questions in a chronological order you know he is repeating what's in his application in the sense that he's going in order what is stated there were is on cross the government's judge myself and a trial lawyer you know a lot of times how we decide whether someone's telling the truth can be but that they're rolling their eyes or whether they're looking at someone i mean and jurors are you know very frequently do all of those things and so demeanor is clearly something that the person that is looking at the witness can articulate and so there is something to review here whether we look at it and say that does seem rote or and it seems different here or not but really what did the i g point to that was wrote other than saying it was a rose there wasn't real anybody knows of slighting what she did to doing points to the way the questions were answered in the inaccuracies in the that were stuck to in the declaration but then he didn't have a you know an explanation i mean the i j a was making observations from demeanor based on what she saw and so what you're arguing is that we should make a different demeanor determination when we're not seeing the witness testify and that's problematic i don't think we're asking this panel to make a new demeanor i think we're asking this  congress that was something how it would it would sort of like if you're catholic and they ask you do you know what the trinity is and the father the son and the holy spirit if you don't know that you're probably not catholic all this you know this that he didn't know anything he didn't know anything about it and he claimed his family had been active in it forever and he couldn't recount the simplest things over as of this court has one cannot make an adverse credibility finding  level of a respondents or petitioner's religious fervor or devotion i don't have the case well i think you're right i think they do i think the court has suggested some hesitation and making this determination at least in the context  of religion because a person could genuinely hold a religious belief and suffer persecution and maybe not fully understand all the tenets of the religion but this is a little different and that he says about being a political belief for which he was persecuted for which he claimed  family were very involved for a very long period of time but he couldn't articulate anything about those beliefs or this organization that he purportedly belonged to i would disagree in the sense that he did explain that the tenants of the congress party were for social good good works for the community which he participated in so persecution or he knew the name of mr lucky his regional boss or person in charge of this party then he said that that person was he was ot a particularly high education and he knew what was going around in his backyard in his village and that is what was important he knew the work he participated in that he volunteered for he knew who talk about any of those things he didn't talk about and you volunteer work that he did all he said was in very general terms that he was part of this group the congress because the help they help poor people or they were in when asked for details he'd say well they'll come along and help you they'll help you they'll be by you they'll stick with you you know it was just very general there are no details whatsoever and no explanation of anything that he did not that i can recall from the record if i'm missing it please point he had agreed with you and said you know this guy doesn't have much education he gets very confused and i really don't think it's a problem that he didn't know that he was on a high ranking party member or that he wouldn't know any of these things and so found in your favor and granted relief and the government appealed and the government was standing up here saying to me well look if you can't be a member of the congress and not know this that and the other i would probably be saying the same thing to the government saying well but the i was listening saw the person and the i j a thought that he wasn't you know that he wasn't very intellectually complicated that he was you know he didn't have that capacity and all of those things and i would be telling the government sorry you know the i j a found against you because you i j was listening and that seemed to make sense so sometimes rulings that a court when they're looking at the person can go either way and when it comes up here we would say that's the person that's looking at them and that's the person that's they're entitled to deference  that was enough evidence to show that he participated in the party there is no requirement that there is some minimal threshold of activities he should be involved in to qualify him as an actual bonafide member of the party you want to  and please the court john hope for the attorney general substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility finding with regard to demeanor petition or search that the immigration judge made no findings with regard to demeanor you know if it was just a hypothetical proposition let's say i'm a judge and the testimony comes in and i say i didn't believe a word he said how do you establish substantial evidence to support that kind of a determination well that's a conclusion and there would have to be further findings if the judge said i just didn't believe a word they said so is standing alone that comment that would not be substantial evidence  in the law is that the judge cannot just say i didn't believe the demeanor of the judge must articulate reasons my point is is that in six circumstances the immigration judge articulated demeanor well i bow to i'm not quarrelling on the detail i'm just trying to make the substantive point that some are more difficult to review that others yes and we would submit to the court this was not difficult to review at all because last the court if you ever seen a time where the immigration judge  circumstances in his written opinion that related demeanor for example the st on page fifty two or fifty two the immigration judge the petitioner submitted testified with a flat ather act unemotional particularly problematic in light of petitioner was testifying about his mother being beaten twice in him being beaten once so flat efik that's demeanor ok secondly halting halting testimony petitioner on their brief on page sixteen dollars seventeen cents acknowledge that the immigration judge the civic leader used the testimony was halting and we this court has said that pace is a significant factor in terms of demeanor the judge said he testified haltingly and what did the judge contrast here goes to the contradiction between don't presume that my questions are based on that i just indicating that for me as an appellate judge it's difficult to review a credibility determination when it is made on highly subjective factors not support not supported by objective truth and untruth but here the immigration judge made the subjective factor that object excuse me the object of determination that the testimony was halting but then he articulated the the reason why i came to that conclusion and he contrast of the testimony of petitioner on direct well that when they be with the ten that i may be wrong that may be adequate it may be very helpful to me but the former is not the mere fact that the judge said halting yes of the but we would submit that you have to take the halting observation in context with the s and even point to make is it's very difficult to decide cases on pure credibility because as famous justice once said one man's blasphemy is another man's lurk and it is one haltingly may be an indication of credibility in another man's cultic may be just the opposite what was meant to the court that demeanor is only one of four factors and halting is only one of six factors so even if we remove all thing president of the congress party and that his answer was wrong that's another demeanor observation the immigration judge on page fifty two of the record said that petitioner regularly readily provided answers on direct again that's demeanor readily quickly  pages fifty five in fifty six that was if age fifty to fifty five and fifty six observed that petitioners demeanor was defensive ok and he was confused so in six the city circumstances the court the court of law let me let me turn your attention to one of the counsels asked what happened after ten minutes the respondent says there were some people passing by and they called my father and mother she he referred to these people as as bystanders thought or passer bys i think he called them and the i j a says well he said they were passer bys but because he knew him they couldn't be passer bys well there's nothing inconsistent with being a passer by and one of them be somebody you knew what's inconsistent about that and yet the i j a say well that's inconsistent and that's what there are others i done going to take my colleagues times going through these one by one but it just struck me as judge callahan said earlier this the smell test that somehow all of these kind of struck some of these struck me as the i j a most stretching to look for credibility for determinations that to be didn't seem so well supported but the immigration judge said here in his written opinion your honor with regard to the specific contradiction that you're referring to that the context was this one of those word with regard to that contradiction the contradiction is not he but what he said was it's the circumstances surrounding the contradiction that show that the testimony was regurgitated memorized repetition rehearsed mirrored and of his prior statement and what he was doing as he said with regard to whether the passers by informed the parents of the alleged beating or whether kumar called the parents and told him why couldn't you are be a passer by he could but what what was significant is that petitioner at the outset provided a declaration and the statement in the declaration he said bystanders at the beginning of testifying on direct he doesn't say kumar he lapses into his prior statement that the judge was concerned appeared to be memorized and then he said passers by the the judge caught him and said wait just a minute you said kumar and he said oh it just came out and it was that it was that response with regard to the contradiction that you're on is focusing on the contradiction in the judge said that's not key it's his response and similarly with respect to his parents beating that's that's the whole mission from his declaration he didn't say anything in his declaration about his parents being beaten by political opponents the day that he left the came to the united states he was asked you know what why didn't you put that in your statement and again it wasn't necessarily the omission it's in the book the board in the immigration judge focused on this it was his vacillating explanation of the reasons for the omission three different explanations st of all i should have mentioned it secondly he goes to his mother's i have a david he said all the reason i didn't mention it look at line three of my mother's ever david in there the mother says the people came in and slapped her that well that's entirely non responsive that's not why he didn't put it and then finally he said well maybe i just didn't remember it so his vacillating explanations are and the the with regard to the emission are significant and then finally the employs ability of his testimony your honor to focus on this is a young boy at the age of nineteen join the congress party for a then when he was confronted with his being wrong he acted surprised and summary it's the totality the circumstances the demeanor evidence inconsistency the implausibility of his testimony and the omission that supports the average credibility fin your honor is in response to the government's contentions the government wants the score to affirm the unsupported speculation and conjecture of the immigration judge as to was i would agree about of a lowered but there's nothing in the record to show that's a close friend or a buddy of the petitioner he didn't know the person later he was told by his family what his name was and so he perhaps did not have it at the suggesting that the i j a is required to believe the testimony and less there's something else besides demeanor questions while there is no lack of actual inconsistency and corroboration as