removal proceedings after filing an affirmative asylum application with the department of homeland security at the time the department of homeland security denied his asylum application and referred it to the immigration court due to material inconsistency in this claim based on not having enough detail it in his initial application just tell you what worries me the most and particularly in light of the standard of review that we have which is very deferential to the to the board and course in this instance the gratian judge is largely adopted by the board that's number one the plagiarism count and number two here is representation that he had only one interview for a visa when in fact he had two and the immigration judge thought these were both serious problems with his credibility and relied on them in making his credibility determination how can we say that that no one could come to that conclusion your honor in terms of the deep we can use article line that was in his affidavit it's unclear the petitioner did state that he did he had written some articles and that's it might have come from those articles and he never proffers them he never filed some motion to reopen he never in any way tries to back up that statement and so the immigration judge isn't impressed by it i mean it's he frankly just doesn't believe that explanation and that's a motion to reopen or for me it's mr too will have written something and he could point to it i would think that would be perfect material for a motion to reopen but it never happens that is true your honor we we would our position would be in that you know in that aspect in respect to that line that was in the affidavit out of a ten page affidavit that it didn't go to  and and i know that under after the real i d act we don't need to look if there isn't going to consistency that does that does go to the heart but doesn't go to the heart of the claim the judge may still consider it in the totality of the circumstances well and on top of that you know i mean thinking way back with my academic hat on if you spot some plagiarism you're not really sure about the integrity of the rest of the document either i mean how do you know it's just one sentence maybe the person changed the wording a little bit more elsewhere it's really it's a it's the kind of behavior that causes serious concern about credibility i understand that your honor and and i do i do go back to my statement that it is he doesn't he doesn't state in his affidavit that he saw this happen he states that this happened at that's true that an event he was attending he doesn't say he saw it he doesn't say that he knew the people he doesn't describe anything in terms of the event rather than saying this happened at that rally where there were many people so what about the visa application in terms of these application in our briefs we state we talk about this in terms of the fact that there is you have no reason to misrepresent his visa application government does submit the two b s applications in terms of they did they submit what the state department wrote as to why they denied it the first one and why they approved the second one in terms of the first one and both were based on the same school that he was most supposed to attend in the united states right they were both student visas it was the same school the same circumstances it looks like in the first one it was denied because we only have you know a brief statement in the denial for why it was denied in terms of it seems like it doesn't make sense don't you think if you are an immigration judge and you've caught somebody twice in a misrepresentation i'll just call it a failure maybe to be as complete as possible however you want to say this im judge found that that undermined his confidence in this man's credibility and that's why i stress beginning the standard of review how or how are we in a position to contradict that i because believe that they speak about the real i d act it was after the riady passed the idea act passed that they mention it the judge is supposed to still determine between materialise and trivial and consistency is in terms of both of these aspects of the respondents testimony they're just side issues in his case it doesn't go to what happened to him it doesn't talk about you know and like as i said with the visa application i i don't believe that he had he would have had any reason to credibility roger when you look at the at the credibility findings of the immigration judge made and which was affirmed i'm looking at page ninety two of the record the immigration judge made things that weren't in the first affidavit has been explained by the petitioner in that he thought the first affidavit was so as to be just of a summary it wasn't supposed to be a detailed examination of all the factors that would permit him to remain in the united states the immigration lawyer just pacifically addresses that he talks about the specifics in the affidavit that were both contemporaneous with the omitted parts that appeared in his testimony as well as the subsequent subset of similarities between the statements in the affidavit and the statements made later in his testimony he preface is that by pointing out that this is a highly intelligent person that was obviously very prepared had mentioned that he had done some reading in preparation for example occasion these findings in my judgment are remarkably specific and comply to the nines with the requirements of section eleven fifty eight of the act does speak as to that the first affidavit did have vents that were listed in the second affidavit but and some of them were actually very specific and he doesn't speak as to some of the events which were written the second affidavit that did happen at the same time however this is a man he is a very intelligent man but if i went to an engineering student in the united states he would have no idea how to write a brief he would have no idea that he has to be very specific and i actually speak in my reply brief as to the asylum application instruction state that they do state to write your full story in your affidavit however they talk they talk about the fact that you can supplement your explanations and anything you submit in your sign up occasion at the time of the interview we don't have any the interview notes from asylum application are we don't get those i submit to you though that the illinois or the immigration judge specifically addressed that he noted the degree of specificity in the first and that david which  the explanation that at that point he was uninformed because he didn't have the assistance of the of this other fellow of what his title is but the immigration judge specifically rejects and so there's a great deal of specificity and that th the verb mention the first affidavit are contemporaneous with events that were raised in the second affidavit and the subject will be similar implying that they'd be smart enough to put him in the first affidavit these kinds of things he should have incorporated the second one believe sometimes that they would they would have a lot of emotion writing it and if they get into a certain event they write a lot and you know they would stop right here you know depending on certain certain events i just from experience dealing with someone who's not a lawyer writing an affidavit they're not going to write it like a lawyer would write it they wouldn't know and the immigration judge does speak as to the fact that the first affidavit doesn't seem to make sense the the events don't run together in terms of with the second affidavit where the petitioner did have the help of an attorney it does seem to make more sense importantly asylum officer to have full facts in the case this supports the conclusion that he would include all material aspects of the claim at the first opportunity and then he goes on to talk about how well educated he was and how eight it seems to me that i just believe that come you know with the petitioner and i just know from you know and keep it comes off in terms of when the first when the asylum office wrote their decision they stated that there material not that he didn't include material things that testimony seemed incomplete he didn't the events were not in detail we got your point was and let me just try to summarize because time has run out as i understood your him not credible the agency relied on four main things first the material missions comes first affidavit the consistencies brain is affidavits and his and his written written evidence the fact that again the language contained in his second affidavit is identical to what he was article and that was pretty trivial i thought the main point was really that the second affidavit rather systematically both let's just say portrayed a more grim picture of the treatment that he'd received through his student activism and also portrayed a picture of somebody who was more centrally place  in this so both in the sense of how bad was it and who was he the second affidavit appeared to shift the focus if you will and the immigration judge looking at all of the things that judge jarrett talking about you know what happened in two thousand and six to two thousand and eight and what you know i agree there are there's two main things with that the first is the most material omissions there's wholesale allegations that are missing and details regarding the allegations that he did include in the first affidavit but he simply failed to include those material admissions with with regard to that first affidavit and that mr taylor's argument on is main argument in the opening brief is well look he didn't have an certain individuals from you know him very impoverished countries who are literate might be in the tourney to help you know help them express themselves but that was specifically not the case here mr take your legs ok i understand your point here and you look at mr taylor's level of competence i mean again if he has a master also let me just if you're trying to convince is the immigration judge was absolutely right yes you're not going to convince me but you may convince me that there was no misrepresentations about the us visa process i mean all this all this is is more than enough evidence to support the agency's adverse credibility determination again as an exact exemplary adverse credibility determination out there can you explain to me i have to say i was french translator this is this is mr tate was murdered for that matter seedings i mean this is the simplest of things that he could have done to you and do so i mean against mr taylor's burden to simply find a third party translator translate them and certify that that the translator is competent in french in english and he didn't do that for for a number of doctors here this that he has to go to or can you just go hire a french graduate student from the university of chicago to to do it or i'm not entirely certain what that what the third party a neutral third party who is who will certify that they are competent in french and english will at best a disinterested party at best a third party disinterested party mr taylor can't simply translate them themselves himself so again  it's going to be a missions he does not need again he has a master's degree and telecommunications engineering side engineering it's telecommunications engineering he was competent enough to go to get through you know the polytechnic in cameroon and again regarding that eyes from something he had at that point he says yes well i wrote in numerous articles on these in cameroon and it's it's possible that the wiki news article was plagiarizing my and my articles and of course the i j so did you submit any of this and he's made his evidence he says no and with great emotion up and no motion has been filed but again these are exactly the type of documents that you would file with an asylum application in the first instance so again none of that was included emsworth regard to the the us visa he did have a reason to hospital the medical records he submitted stated that he was supposed to rest for thirty days i don't know if that's where the discrepancy came from the response of the petitioner's name or his main language was in french so most of his you know his first affidavit which he submitted was in english the petitioner has learned english since he's come to the united states but that only began when he first got here the in terms of the translations  petitioner i know he did have you had about three months to prepare his entire case before the immigration judge would be sympathetic to if it were you know very uncommon language really french but i i from dealing with the petitioner i know that you know he wasn't able to get many of the materials that he received just in time for the hearing some of them were submitted some of them keep personally translate in the judge did not accept the translations on your t