morning your honor land whalen or the appellant petition on this matter the immigration judge made three significant errors in this case first she improperly refused to admit numerous relevant documents and then complained about a lack of corroboration secondly she claimed that the petitioner was not credible because she had memorized a two page written statement and could not deviate from that statement when in fact or seventy five percent of her testimony dealt with issues and facts that were not covered in the statement at all i was amused by that because you usually resign to complain and you tend to find all sorts of things that had not gone to church once at all and in her application she said she was not a religious person after the interview with the asylum office she began to go to church and about six months later five months later she was baptized the decision was then made about a year after that the judge got that sequence of events completely wrong the judge had her being going to church after the asylum case was decided and decided it's a way around by a long shot but there was no way for her to have a problem with with with deviation from a statement discussing religion because the state would never covered religion that this was all an after after fact and yet the judge felt very strongly that she had memorized her statement she was regurgitating a statement when in fact seventy five percent of questions had nothing to do with the statement whatsoever so the judge on that particular point was just completely wrong and that was one of her main reasons for finding that the witness was not credible the judge was the one who was wrong but the third reason that the the judge i think made a mistake is that she engaged in permissible speculation about the reason that the  were religious conversion the judge seemed to feel that she had had her interview and all of the sudden realize that she needed to find something else to do so she started going to church  and but the decision already been made and she was looking for this or something later and the judge simply got the sequence of events wrong by more than a year and i think it's also the judge also in this and in the did not listen to her statements about why she went to church the judge had her going to church for five months at one point before she became baptized three months at one point and one month at one point the judge wasn't even listening to her own testimony her pinioned ran thirty one pages she covered each of these points four or five times and as you read through this you see that she kept getting different reasons different reasons to her reasons or the way i understand these are put together they don't have them transcript of sounded like she was reading from  case not continue it over for about four or five months and she came back apparently she did not know what her notes meant because she made references for example at one point she made a reference to the fact that the witness has said she'd read the bible and could not cite her favorite portion of the bible in fact as i pointed out my brief the testimony was the trial of the district council asked you what your favorite person revival she said yeah i tell you the lord's prayer he said no is that your favorite portion she said yes and talked about could i ask you a question about the medication yes issue i'm a little confused by the record in any event the first hearing the i j a calls into question these various the chinese foreign affairs ministry and saying that is your signature now that is supposed to be attached then to a document that says that this person has in fact authenticated something below that and it goes all the way back down to whatever the original base document is both an occasion is only authentication of a signature has nothing to do with the contents of the document and what you do anyway it's only for official government signatures on official government documents and what you do is you send the document to the embassy they have exemplars of signatures on cards on hand they will say yes this looks like it is the signature this particular person and i send them back and that's all of them occasionally but there was a gun that was not done because that that would be the i know i want to do a field investigation and have it sent over they have a field investigation office at the embassy that does fraudulent documents investigations but that's not a thing occasion and the judge the letters from the husband and daughter authenticated that cannot be done so that the judge misunderstood the entire authentication functioning if that was one of the main reasons she gave for not admitting any of these documents and i she can say i find her not credible the judge never did that the judge me no credibility plenty regarding these documents and the the longest court is that if the court is going to make credibility finding regarding documents it has to go through the cogent analysis of why this document is not credible she did not do that and some of these documents were clearly very important in this case because if the judge had done an analysis found that some of the documents were credible she agreed that she had the abortion but she said i'm not sure the abortion was coerced because she was able to keep working and she got paid but that one has nothing do with the other and so and is that something that is considerate consider nothing and i would use an active communist official a high level official in comes the united states is it improper  to i'm not saying she was but is it improper to take that into account i think it's highly improper and the she wasn't a high level official she worked in her business she was the trade representative both in the menses she was like the union may please the court john you find we have the united states attorney general you honors the substantial evidence supports the agency's finding in this case and the court may very well find that in some of these findings through that a reasonable jupiter might have been compelled pointing to is is the christian pamphlet mailings that she testified to to china and specifically the judge noted issue with this finding when she testified that she made it right on she did give that explanation but that backing up a little bit the judge had a problem with the fact that that sequence of questioning began when she said that she mailed these pamphlets booklets and magazines to her husband the judge then said esther how is it possible that the police found out about it if you mail that your husband she's then replied that well i asked him to send it to a friend of mine that she wanted to get it to answer that the judge you know it's also in her decision that she found this this woman to be intelligent didn't believe that she she would ask her husband to give these brochures to another individual and put him at risk of these things being discovered of course she did respond to that the question she the judge did not find that plausible because then there after she mentions the fact that she puts her name on the document in the person issue came up a sow's that that it was traced back to you the judge didn't find it plausible that she would put her maiden name on there and then also believe and she said to her maiden name was not an uncommon one in that area and that ultimately that somehow let's you it going back to her husband it's not really explained as to how and beyond that the notation evidence came out and at that this part of the claim was not credible but this part was well i think you can now i'm not saying that we disbelieve on the christianity one way or the other but the statute is very clear that if you  said some reasons that involve not only the religious issue but the whole claim she found to be incredible for us as to whether or not she can establish a claim specifically and one god she certainly can do that and the agency would have to make that determination in the first  case you were saying we didn't know why well that's because the agency didn't find that to be the case in the first instance because that would be a finding on the merits and this case it didn't get to that and that's why it would have to be inconsistent with the findings of this court then take that the case that issue before it and there's no further questions on that issue that one specific issue alone and setting back to why you gather this court would have to find that it was support rationally views of the judge or to visit her to question in not admitting these pieces of evidence again it would have to be remanded in order to make a determination on the record with the documents as exists in the record as to whether or not  it well yes and no i disagree with the the government document that was right up the police summons that certainly could have been authenticated whether or not it has to be it doesn't have to be but in this situation the judge found there there was an issue with him because several these documents had a notary stamp on them including the originals and other staff from someone commission in california she apparently took issue with that didn't and didn't find that to be really something that was safer in her mind as terms of the credibility of these documents and because of that she suggested that these doctors that these documents she said pick some of them i guess in her mind it's to make her feel more at ease with the credibility of these documents and to have the think the case the signature of the signing official of the chinese government whether or not it's a copy or not what you're presenting is an original that of course helps the credibility of that document but on top of that if it's authentic it will require the if it's bona fide marriage and we know in our brief that that somehow seems to cut against the issue of course for family planning and fearing that when she is now married in this country and previously her claim is that she fears going back in movie because of the time running out do you dispute the sequence you know the conversion in relationship to when she knew that her asylum application had been in the yard and frankly the record seems to me to support petition for was approved it was approved on feb eleventh two thousand and four and she is still married to the same american citizen so that she does have immediate relief available to her of applying for a council los angeles is extremely difficult to get any decision out of them a program to reopen the case but if the case is amanda's back for any further hearings so the case is still open respect to since it was a presidential executive order resign from we were implementing is there some policy now that loreal is representing as a an outside client instead of now representing itself in effect now that you have d h s s the client is there some policy because we did just issue an order directing the d h s s be part of a mediation is there a government restriction in there that we need to be alerted to the that you could share with us