affirmative application for asylum because he was unable to practice his religion in india in two thousand and seven he faced three horrendous incidents the only documentary proof and  corroborating prove provided in this case has been by my client he's provided country conditions to show in two thousand and seven his religious group there are such a thought or were confronted by sikhs beaten by sikhs and in fact killed by seek counsel could you help me on the moving to his relatives twenty eight kilometers away but what's that all about and how come it didn't come up initially it was one of the things that made the j suspect that it wasn't telling him the truth doesn't contradict this case and it's a classic case that this court of appeals has come out in three president believe the issue the issue wasn't whether living with relatives was about eighteen miles away  enhanced or detracted from his case it was whether it was credible that he wouldn't think to mention it in an earlier statement i don't believe it shows any adverse credibility doesn't state any reason to doubt his testimony as i stated it came out in this case in lay versus holder that when you are asked questions during cross examination you remember events that you didn't mention and he mentioned that after his incident being beaten by the police and taken away and detained by the police he went and relocated with any relatives it does not help or show any inconsistency inconsistency in the statements wouldn't that statement though undermine his case in a way as i understand it substantively if he if he can relocate within the country to avoid any harm occurring that does undermine its case so is couldn't protect him and arrested him and he was picked on by sikhs which he interchangeably uses with the words a colleague and ariston militants he's an elderly gentleman with a rural education maybe up to the tenth grade the immigration judge allowed him to be led to certain facts his living with relatives did not help in practice his religion just kept him safe from being attacked he was unable to practice his particular religion which is he calls a donor such just sort of which is the truthfulness and it's a synthesis of all religions help me with the yes a colleague seeking we get a lot of cases or i guess we had a wave of now not as many regular political party and it's an offshoot that favors the session and has some terrorist activities yeah i'd like to just get two minutes for rebuttal but to answer your question the akali dal is a general generic term is the separatist organization that is allowed to function in india to create an independent state and has faced violence by the indian state to suppress it that is correct oh i thought they were violent themselves maybe both distinction between the are the akali dal he use the akali dal the sikh organization as a terrorist group and that i don't believe is adverse to the use that as an adverse credibility it isn't but the biggest issue and we have in this case is the speculation on the government and on the judge he was treated by a doctor whose specialty was in being a pediatric doctor and we provided a corroborating proof he provided that he owns a hospital and they came and made a speculation that how could a pediatrician provide him and where you can see medical care even though you on the hospital and that's the basis for the adverse credibility fin there is no medical report provided by the government or any opinion that a bigger titian could not see my client as i understood that though it wasn't it wasn't a question of whether he was a pediatrician but was the question that he didn't know that and then when he was questioned about whether he actually saw this pediatrician he stored a started backtracking and saying well there were other doctors at the hospital so it did seem to call into question you're right and he had a letter from the doctor that seems pretty compelling but then he sort of started backtracking as i read it to suggest that he wasn't sure whether that was actually the doctor he saw or whether it was another doctor could you speak to that yes he was very clear that he saw d dr paul was the family doctor he called him his family doctor he mentioned him as a family doctor dr paul wrote a letter status from his nursing home stating he has sufficient degrees and b b s d c h but he's a was always justifying through an interpreter and he's in a little gentleman do you think i'm sorry do you think that there was some confusion then on his part i mean it is hard you're reading the record admittedly there's it's not clear exactly how he was responding to things but ultimately what is that and then you can see the referee but what's the standard that we're looking at to determine whether that adverse credibility determination should be reversed if they stand substantial evidence how can pediatrician is not a medical doctor that's the basis of the inconsistency and speculation that the decision of the government is based on and should be overturned there's no basis for the thank you i don't this is from town a big city is it a small and i was thinking when my doctor left to go to the south seas to wind up his career and i had to find a new doctor no one would take medicare patients because medicare pays half the market rate and  family practitioner who does mostly pediatrics and o b g y n and i thought my gosh i go to a pediatrician too right except when she's doing o b g y n the reason was so at that big town a reasonable explanation as to why you want to go see a pediatrician so when he was i was pretty articulate fella compared to some illiterate from the punjab but it but it makes sense and so when he was when mr chip was confronted with this he said several times that he went to go see  his explanation and it sounded like he didn't even know the difference it's like when other people in my town they say i went to the doctor and all they saw was the nurse practitioner that would be a reasonable explanation but we he did was he sort of went off narrative you can see it from we only have a cold record so you can see it that he was sort of thrown by this question it's up to a lot of nine to twelve but when he was thrown by this question he goes off narrative didn't sound thrown he went to the doctor it's still the town so called the hospital he didn't know from pediatrician he saw a pediatrician that's the doctor he said he wants one founded in this testimony when he when he answered the question he said well that doc that hospital has a lot of doctors so that implies that it after that has other doctor it has other doctors he said why did you see peter say why he said other hazard as that so that implies that it wasn't actually when you look at the careful reading of the record couple with the fact that he's really my family doctor is he a pediatrician that's where it gets confusing he was confused and unable to answer as to why you talk to polish the pediatrician and doesn't appear to really understand the distinction is that is d pediatrician he's my family doctor that's why i went to see him so there's some inferences drawn here that i'm not sure is in the record i think the inference is actually you actually go the other way i respectfully so when he does imply that he that there are other doctors at the hospital i think that implication park asks who looks like he's a pediatrician is that right and just says well i didn't understand and then they go back and forth on the letterhead and then park says he's it says he's a child specialist which seems to indicate a pediatrician is that right well it's a hospital and it has the hospital has other doctors in it as well it doesn't say a lot of doctors who you would accidentally mention before and it says other doctors and then they go to the next page it's a hospital it's what you said you saw dr pao yes it's a hospital instructor pals hospital you said you saw dr pal is he a pediatrician i don't know i don't know right now so i that's where i got the idea that he didn't know what a pediatrician was what he knew was  the local hospital i went to the doctor and that ends with and who did you see dr pao right i think the immigration judge made a reasonable took a reasonable inference from that that you know there's other doctors in the hospital and  says because the police are a colleague all members themself are supporters and so that's going to be like noteworthy when you actually take into account the fact that if you read his written statement which leads to the second inconsistency the inconsistent inconsistency between his written interrogation they indicated that i had ties with a colleague doll militants i was released after days plural of beating and torture at the request of the local system here so this conflicts with his testimony number one no not if he means by the militants the the doll party is not there oppose that group then event when he said during the testimony that he was detained or he was beaten up by these akali dal militants eleven days before he was asked why didn't you report this he said because the indian police are calli supporters but at the same time his written statement says the police interrogated him question and pain me and accuse me of being a college all member and sometimes it doesn't make any sense when you add it all up so there's also indicating i had ties with them i cally doll militants i think it's meant to get the referring to the police because he said that the police were pro a colleague thousand wouldn't make any sense like using him of being affiliated with a coll statement compared to his testimony that doesn't make sense and the last thing is as you are noted so there's this omission from his asylum application so he omitted this fact that for five or six months he said he had to flee his home and live twenty  kilometers away with relatives so he didn't say that in his direct testimony it's an omission he didn't say that in his asylum statement and he didn't say it as asylum application and in fact this conflicts directly wit one nation but he didn't provide it that long for you were pretty much any any of us here to plan a trip like that but that would be a reasonable explanation if he gave it which he did not and so just like you on our side with the pediatrician which i know you just agree with but your hon us he never said that he didn't even know the difference i don't know if that evidence is in the record that he did know the difference he just said i don't know he couldn't tell i did not say they didn't know what he asked when he answered he said there are other doctors in the hospital that thanks very much jonathan basically what you have to do is go to the corroborating objective documentation over here these incidents clearly occurred in two thousand and seven and the documents show at that time his group the d such as sort of well being hunted lynched by sikhs throughout india specifically in punjab in the state of ariana that's the background information he provided a letter from an assistant mare who had to get his release there's no dr there's no dispute he was detained and he was released he's a robbery to ask a question so yes there's we've been given three reasons why the adverse credibility determination should be supported on appeal if we find that one everything so what would what would your response be would we have to find that all three of these were totally unreasonable and don't have any basis in fact or would we send one back and say hey considering that we don't agree that there's evidence on this one you need to really look at the question the law asks you to look at the objective facts and the objective facts show that the a kali's were killing and harming members of the darrow such as sata there is no dispute he's a member of the darrow such a sort of that their talent you have all the evidence over here proves he was going to be harmed and had been harmed regardless of his testimony or any can inconsistency that you wish to find which there isn't any supported the objective i can is my question is if i j made an adverse credibility determination so we have to review that and my question is if we say that that adverse credibility determination was only supported by one of the three reasons or two of the three reasons is that enough to then undermine the adverse credibility determination and get to the substantive question that you were just arguing i'm intentionally not answering that question because the judge never looked at the corroborating arc documentation you meant to look at the corroborating documentation you might look at the objective proof if you don't believe the individual that's the tally cast under the realize she didn't do it neither did the b i and that's why it fails that first credibility finding if i just stand alone and answer your question on those three reasons yes the government wins but you have to look at the whole picture and that's to required under the realized yet thank you very much