good morning they please the court my name is greg marotta i represent the petitioner for coal mine this is a petition for review immigration matter where the board in the immigration judge denied asylum being a citizen seeking asylum based on past persecution because of his political opinion or asking the court to remain the case back to the agency to reconsider the negative credibility finding in light of the recent decision by a panel of this court in the dow case get case states that the immigration judge which actually the same immigration judge in this matter judge  and all the documentation in the record says it was twenty eleven he said it was twenty years wealth and he maintained that throughout the hearing so that's also part of the the demeanor issue the judge made a negative  credibility find that based on his demeanor because he was having trouble answering questions because his own attorney kept asking him are you sure it's twenty twelve and he kept saying yes twenty twelve and then there was another date issue he said september instead of october so he seemed to be fumbling around because he made what are basically innocent mistakes there were a lot of information in this record his he and his family been persecuted for years generations so there was a there was a lot to go over and he did fumble some dates the government attorney was a seasoned trial attorney and the way she was asking questions made him seem not credible for instance  she the credible fear interview he said there was a question the second beating did your assailant say anything to you before they beat you and he said no in the credible fear interview during li testimony he said while they were beating me they they were telling me why they were beating him so trivial actually because that goes to the heart of his graham does not well to me it's not inconsistent whether they said it think before they insisted that it's a trivial difference in the testimony and what readable fear interview he neglected to mention that there's a longstanding persecution because of his membership in this party that's not trivial to me well he he wasn't asked the question whether they said anything they were beating him no but did they ask why he was be i don't recall want to belabor the point i just think that this is sort of outside the realm of what gal was talking about but go on but i consider it i mean it is a little different think yeah but it is an omission that in the credible fear interview of the probably the credible figure to view is that is they don't ask all the questions that it's very it's a very low burden to show a credible fear so what it's seems once they have enough information they stop the interview so that the additional information that he gave during direct testimony and in his statement or not i don't find them a consistent just more information which which i consider not inconsistent sort of saying the dates two thousand and eleven two thousand and twelve anybody can make that mistake what about the identity card issue though his father had been a member for a long time i think he was head of the local chapter but the the identity cards were seems a bit odd that they would be and is it that you said they were reissued every year is that is that your argument that's it just happened to go to the like on a more vehicles the same time or something that's what i think happened it's he said they were reissued i think d before they were renewed i don't recall just that but that brings up another point where the judge asked him to describe the card and he couldn't describe the card and i just think that's an improper  mean i have documents in my wallet i looked this morning i thought i gave myself a test i looked at my driver's license and there's a picture of the new jersey state capital in my driver's license i could've told you that before i looked at it and it's been in my wallet for ten years  so i don't think that's a reasonable cogent reason to find him not credible the fact he couldn't describe his membership card and the other issue was which which hospital he went to wh yes the other the other perceived inconsistency was where he went to the hospital he was first asked where he was the hospital he said i went to the hospital into me or it's just that deceptive because he initially said it was a clinic and he knew the name of the doctor that treated him so i don't think that is a good reason to find him not credible either  may please the court collette winston for acting attorney general whitaker the issue here is whether considering the totality of the circumstances the record compels reversal of the agency's adverse credibility determination where there were unexplainable discrepancies between mr plume eyes credible fear interview his asylum application his statement and this testimony and he displayed questionable demeanor there were seven in consistencies in total not mere omissions not mere supplementation is like in the gap case but inconsistency four of which were noted by the immigration judge and the board three of which were noted just by the immigration judge in this case substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination by the agency the first inconsistency was the date of his c d p membership this was not trivial in his testimony as as counsel stated he insisted several times that the year was two thousand and twelve while it in his asylum application his personal statement his credible fear interview and an independent letter from the chairman of the c d p it was stated that he became a member in two thousand and eleven now this is not trivial because he had two incidents that occurred to him adverse credibility determination but there are cases even decided after gal there are six cases decided after gaffe and one of them did talk about the day the same case the date when problems began with a political party and that was not seen as trivial that was seen as an important inconsistency that supported the adverse credibility determination you know but what does this consistency lead to a belief that why would he lie about the year he joined why would he make it later rove and sooner if he was trying to gain admission to this country i don't understand why it would be simply a failure of memory to date overlooked by both the immigration judge and the board but in addition as to the october two thousand and twelve attack in his credible fear interview he was asked what did they say before they beat you his assailants and he said they didn't say anything and beat me on page four thirty however in this testimony he flipped he filled it in a new and different way and he said he said they told me that you're getting these beatings because of your to to try and get asylum it's important they said they were beating him because he was a member of this committee exactly and it's important not because it goes to the heart of a claim which was the standard before the real i d act but what was important because it was it was not something like a small interrogation window that was omitted in the gal case something extremely insignificant  also he didn't know the name of the current c d p president you would think that someone who left his country albania leftist family leftist culture left his language because of his connection the c d p that was the whole reason for his his leaving of his country according to him would certainly kind of stay abreast of what was going on with his political party that was so important to him but he couldn't couldn't say that he was also as as your honor pointed out unable to describe the cd peace symbol on his cart it's not that we can describe everything in our wallet we couldn't but this is this is the political party that he put up posters for that he distributed flags for he distributed pamphlets you would think that he would know the symbol of his party of his political party that was so important to him in addition  immigration judge noted that he wasn't able to really state who his persecutors were in his credible fear interview and as in his asylum application he called his persecutors the socialist and democratic party members yet in this testimony called them social militants so if he belonged to the democratic party his assailants wouldn't be democratic party members so that's another drop in the average credibility bucket which is the totality the bucket is the totality of the circumstances also the what he stated that he regained consciousness a time our hospital but the medical report in the record said he refused to go to a hospital it was a clinic and his explanation didn't make sense he said an albanian clinic and hospital are interchangeable but in the very document they they made a distinction when he they said he refused to go to a hospital obviously clinic and hospital were different were not interchangeable and then the sequential numbering on his membership cards his father had joined years earlier even if they were new their hearts together the immigration judge wasn't convinced that the membership number was going to change as a result of that and one of the explanations that mr p gave to the immigration judge was they were modernizing the card but if they modernized the card he found the immigration judge found it very suspect that the father's picture was the same and it was a picture of a younger man and that wasn't changed so the sequential numbering just added another drop in that adverse credibility bucket on top of that the immigration judge noted that he candor that he was not responsive his demeanor was suspect he was uncooperative he was hesitant when confronted with the inconsistency and he asked for questions to be repeated a lot he was evasive and the board found that there was no error in that the immigration judges finding particular deferent should be given to correct adverse credibility determinations and  determinations based on demeanor and that's the be you case in the lindh case and the court should not substitute its judgment for the immigration judges determination as long as the totality of the circumstances support the adverse credibility determination so in conclusion based on inconsistency is not omissions like the gal case but inconsistency between the testimony and his asylum application is credible fear interview is asylum statement and a suspect demeanor the agency's adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence and the petition for you here should be denied thank you i was unable to say who the current president was i don't find that telling him that he left this country he was traumatized from what happened to him i don't think it's unreasonable to say that he would turn his back on politics and his country is trying to make a life yes and this demeanor and lacking candor president testimony i think it's explainable because he was being cross examined by a trial attorney with nearly twenty years of experience knows how to ask questions and she was attacking him so i think when you're being attacked and you're being told you're making mistakes it's natural that you would be has it and think about the answer if you're being told something different say i still say that this credible fear interview was not a consistent the statement that they didn't say anything and they beat me is different then they didn't say anything they beat me and then while they were beating me they said where they were from i said i don't think it's inconsistent when he initially testified on direct examination about that beating he said they came up to me immediately and started beating me and then they said why they were said i don't think it's inconsistent i think that you know you hear in the media that immigration matters are like a murder trial in traffic court and that's what this case feels like a trial turning the judge working through lunch it feels like they were rushing through it and it looks like it was a well documented case that was going to be granted and it should have been granted and mr paul my made a mistake and the case went downhill and i think the trial attorney just was attacking him