as a result of that membership and that's going to end spins he was stripped naked beaten tortured and detained for days that is the core of his claims none of his testimony on those elements are disputed the only disputed elements go around the edges in that claim and don't cut into the core of the of the of the heart  only basis for it for his not believing that he was arrested where the other inconsistency is that he cited that are not supported in the record or their work are not legitimate grounds the word documents unclear the didn't come form what he said there's one medical note one medical record that missed that document medical treatment that mr singh does not remember receiving but when confronted with that inconsistency mr singh said if it had been in my heart that i had that i had received the treatment i would have told you but i simply don't remember that was the essence of his testimony and the documents about the arrest were not prepared at the time of the actual grass as i understand it that's true and he admitted they were not authentic they were not signed by the magistrate and therefore they were not exactly as he represented either where  they actually those were the judges words that they were not authentic and that they were not signed by the magistrate at the time that they said they were and those were not mr singh's words the well i understand but the judge had to look at them and so he was the one reviewing the warrant that's true but all that interesting in that is to was that the documents were not prepared contemporaneously with the event that they were prepared after the fact and he admitted that it did not he never said that they weren't that they documented events that never did not occur in any case whether or not a warrant issued in this case is not central to the heart of the claim to be important testimony is that he was arrested well and that's i guess my worry is and i guess i'm going to the same issue my worry is that we here have a credibility finding and the credibility pining is made on certain issues alleges if he has no credibility is not accepted that's you know that's the worry that i have was what you started out with we're really at a credibility pining here that's what you're really fighting is what did the i j a do in his credibility finding as i understand it that was wrong and in the in the credibility because if the i j a says i don't believe one thing the guy says then the facts that you now suggest are true are not necessarily true i agree but the credibility finding isn't supported by substantial evidence because if you look closely at the many grounds that the i j a cites they either don't exist or not they can't be determined from the record because the record is is so in comprehensible and incoherent in places and either that or or the basis that the i j sites is not a legitimate grounds for an adverse credibility finding there is only one inconsistency that the idea cites that actually has evidence in the record for example the fact that his father had left for two years and came back and they only learned of his whereabouts after the  cites that as a basis not to believe even grant but there's no no reasonable fact finder would determine that as a legitimate basis for adverse credibility the fact that his father that there's no evidence in the record as to who operated the farm while his father was gone for two years these facts are not central to his asylum claims and they're not even evidence of love a lack of credibility the fact that his hair was cut one in one thousand nine hundred three and then he stated  again later in his testimony that it was cut when he was when he had to come to night states the idea sights that is the ground not the police and when you let me ask you another question that is kind of a little bit off the track we're really talking about adverse credibility a challenge to have to be a or challenge steve in any any place along this particular situation especially at the v a for instance saying failed the challenges i understand his knowledge regarding the callee doll parties and his knowledge about the father's arrest that wasn't even put in the be brief but what was put in the v a is priest is that there is no evidence supporting any of the argument might not have been a perfect argument in the v i a but the conclusion was that none of the ideas findings were supported by evidence in the record and it's true that there are a few of his findings that are not explicitly talked about but these were clearly indirectly at least raised and exhausted in the b i a i am making exactly the same argument that the petitioners did in the b s a which is that none of the i j a findings are supported by  except for the medicine which doesn't go to the heart of the claim are you sick of it are you suggesting that we should just because somebody says we're fighting credibility and we don't fight all the issues that nonetheless allows you to raise issues in this court that you don't raise to the what i'm suggesting is that that i'm not bringing up any new legal claims that the government was on notice that that mr singh is challenging every single one of the i g his findings and that that shouldn't that should not prejudice him here but that the the the heart of what i'm saying is that the ideas findings are not supported by substantial evidence and that argument was made in the b i the argument w made that except for the medical no which doesn't go to the heart of the claim the idea is findings are insubstantial and that upon closer look at the record ever record which is which is incoherent in many places and suffers from court translation that that there's there's only one inconsistency left standing and had the i j a opinion written been written as though there were only one inconsistency then it would then it would give the image of a much less problematic case so the fact that eight of the nine grounds cited by the i g have no evidence in the record is is not something that was explicitly worded that way in v i i but it doesn't matter because the claim is the same and the claim is that there is no evidence supporting the determination what's your best case for the idea that if you don't challenge you they should be for the b i nonetheless can review it on appeal your honor i i i don't think that there needs to be a case that says that because i think the issues were brought up in v i i and complete  yes well his determination of the deportation decision has already been made so i can that any adjustment of status would be subject to the fact that he was issued as deported and and also that he didn't like apparently knowingly for if it frivolously applied for asylum so under my understanding mr singh is permanently barred from applying for admission to the united states whether he and eighty seven however he presents a doctor's note that say that he was treated on january twenty first one thousand nine hundred three on page eighty seven and eighty eight he admits that the state is correct on page eighty seven and this is not a minor would support his client right it would support his claim if it was a valid document however because it creates another inconsistency another consistency onto the length of his detention he claims that he was detained for ten days after seventy eighty six and one of two but the doctor's note which is exhibit nine on page one nineteen is dated eight days later let me ask another question about that particular issue it's my understanding that there were some inconsistency sentencing was somewhat confronted with the inconsistency and said something about those in consistencies but i find nothing in the records to suggest that the g addressed sings explanations or that the i j a explain the significance of the inconsistency and as i understand the statute or the case law that's what the i g should have done so i guess i'm having a tough time understanding how to help the i j when i didn't find any undressing the explanation of saying gave or the significance of the as you know that any alleged inconsistency in dates are really not very important in determining credibility so i'm trying to figure out where i go to find the explanation  that is true of your case why don't you look like you're in your case well that any one inconsistency that goes to the heart of the claim is enough to support an adverse credibility or some explanation correct and in this decision  speculating on the authenticity without providing a reason and as you go through the record carefully it's i think many if not all of the consistencies are either before him he had to make a determination and since they weren't reliable or credible as a conflicted with to share such a many he was forced to make a decision and he decided that it was not reliable and therefore fraudulent he could not have and i was struck with how poor the translation must have been the answers to so many of the questions were complete non sequitur so you don't really know what the translator said was intelligible that these premises discrepancies existed and moreover this is not an issue that council has brought up before to the board at the appropriate time when it could have been fixed as a procedural defense and therefore has we've  in the record that the high gay finding one allegedly prods one document is not enough we've got to have evidence that the petitioner knew the document was project one when the other evidence  supported this claim in this particular situation this contention or did not did not think the document was fraudulent in fact he admitted the document was not made explain what he finds and what this deals with credibility and i can found no explanation from the how does it deal with credibility because saying didn't say the document  is is made at the time it was made when it was supposed to be he says it's made after the fact and it was sent to me after there after and had i known about it i would have i would have tried to do so i'm just giving you what i have so again and here's the answer yes i meant that but i don't know treatment was done by a doctor for the first time not done was not indiscernible and the papers over there i brought them like that and i had it indiscernible by extracting them from the paper how are we to review that i can't make any sense out of that nor nor can i understand because they didn't make an explanation of why that wasn't an adequate explanation of what the document was about i mean basically you're choosing as well the idea as you know of fraud but his testimony and the fact that he did not present credible testimony up to the point and even if you take his medical notes as credible it creates a different scenario a different situation and therefore there are two different accounts already presented by petitioner and that cannot stop with for example that's like another one you've got the is about when he was arrested and the i j a says he was inconsistent but here's what he says the police indiscernible when he had been arrested they would come and ask me do you know your father is and we didn't know where he was and he says that's an inconsistent statement but but much of the center circle i mean it's hard to judge that on the basis of this record and you understand however that issue with his father's whereabouts was not contested before the board well so i mean it's i made i differ from my colleague it by you know we do have case with say if you raise the general issues about the credibility as long as the issues presented before the board that may be sufficient for exhaustion i mean if it's if if that issue is deemed exhausted then where does that leave you you know i mean we have to deal with it on the merits right if based on the failure for explanation that there is some substantial evidence to support the negative credibility priming where do we go briefly i'd like you just to consider the breakdown in communication that happened in this case and even through the poorly translated and bad record mr singh didn't testify consist consistently with his declaration and was able to  difficult but the very little bits that are coherent and seem to be in proper english and proper translation are consistent with the speculation and that mr singh has a wife and child in this been living here and that if this court were to affirm the ideas determination the unexplained determination that mr singh knowingly and frivolously submitted a fraudulent claim for asylum which was the i g is finding even though there is no evidence that mr singh knew that any part of his claim was fraudulent then he will be permanently barred from returning to nine states that's the response of the government's argument the the intelligent parts of his testimony are consistent with his declaration and just if he is ordered deported but the but did not file a fraudulent application than the statute under eleven eighty two section eleven eighty two says that he is barred for five years and not permanently if the if the finding of the fraudulent application stands and he's terminally barred from ever returning states or applying for admission now the government seems to concede that the one inconsistency that is that this court inconsistently with the medical records that he submitted if he had knowingly submitted those documents and knew that they were fraudulent it would have been in his best interest to lie and to lie consistently with the medical records it just doesn't make sense that this person who seems to be testifying honestly and even when confronted with the medical records says i just does not falter and doesn't change his testimony and just says i simply did not remember it that it's not credible that that mr staying had know if your testimony is less favorable than the documents that it just indicates that there was an attempt to defraud the court mean that's that that's the government's argument is that doesn't make any difference whether it helps him or hurts him at least that's what i gather the government's  true but that's the government's argument but it does make a difference that mr singh didn't know that there is no evidence that he knew that the documents were fraudulent and the yemeni barricades is strong precedent that says that if there is no  for the fraud of the documents and this testimony is otherwise consistent internally which it was in this case that there is no grounds for an added adverse credibility determination and that's the this case is precisely the case as as was the case and y barrow where there was a medical record affirmatively found upon analysis to be counterfeit that the immigrant did not know that but that was supposed to document the medical treatment she received after being tortured and in that case the court right just for those people are arguing the next case and those following will take a ten minute recess after after the argument in this case