d this is this is a case involving a person who is in opposition of the course of family planning policy in china the one point one child policy  as her political opinion the things that she did to resist and the treatment that she received in china to share is married with two children and after the birth of her first child in she continued to resist the policy when she became pregnant again and teaches failure the i u d and had a second child and she had the assistance from her mother and then for her neighbor work i think we're pretty familiar with with the facts here i wanted to ask a couple questions here regarding the adverse credibility finding by the immigration judge seems like that's your the police station it was simply impossible for her to octane that type of evidence well she have contacted her husband and her or her children or submitted affidavit from her husband or her children it seems like she lived in the same place her for over twenty years and that you know them might have been some evidence to corroborate that i was just curious why that wasn't present with regard to household registration arguably she could have gotten a letter from her husband the question is whether that was reliable as reliable as her as her own testimony with regard to where the household registration is kept getting a statement from the police station would have been arguably impossible in i think even with regard to what's in the so you know a situation where do you get the evidence other than stating for your own husband and i would argue that it is simply isn't available what i think is somewhat you know the challenge here is that it seems like she was given an opportunity to address each of the inconsistency is that the b i am not i j relied on was she not she was you know it's always a factor in immigration hearings but there's no real objection or notice of that i should know that the attorney who did the hearing spoke chinese so she would have had the opportunity to make i am tractions if there were what if there was a problem you know where it's i don't know but all this what's your best argument here today on behalf of your client the my and my argument is that that the inconsistency these are regarding documents some that were submitted to the find payment or anything like that and to be a question as to why it says something that is not true or has some slight errors  some evidence that may not exist to prove there is not an inconsistency morning again your honour's john williams on behalf of the government here again we have a petitioner who the immigration judge found lacked credibility and determined that she did not establish eligibility for asylum and other related relief the board of firm immigration judges determination that the petitioner lacked credibility the agency here side its specific and cogent reasons including multiple inconsistency and under this court's law one inconsistency is enough to support the agency's decision here we have at a minimum six inconsistency is that the agency list it from an inconsistency regarding the payment of fine the petitioners job duties the husband's employment status the children's school attendance the location of the household register as well as the petitioners analysis were they as he said even assuming she's credible they think she would still not be eligible or irv should be getting any sort of asylum relief  we have we have to send it back to the b i a then right because it looks like from my read of the b i disposition it only affirmed the assuming the credibility of rankes testimony actually your honor the board affirmed the alternative of decision that the immigration judge made as well the where where where is that because i didn't read it that way it is on the i believe the third page of the board's decision at the end of the first paragraph it's one sentence do you have i would you say the last page it's on the last page page ministry of record page six it says at the end of the first paragraph moreover for the reasons provided by the immigration judge we affirm the immigration judges alternative finding that even assuming credibility the respondent did not stablish eligibility for asylum that's assuming credibility that it is and i can speak to the lack of other resistance i know but they didn't make a separate finding that if we don't assume her credibility she's still not eligible for us asylum well in this instance they expressed adoption of the immigration judge's decision so the court this court can then look to the immigration judge's decision regarding the other resistance no no the issue it seems that we have to look and see what the b i am at least tell me if i'm wrong what they relied on if they the only relied on one part of the i ses decision and not specifically adopt the other then it seems like we have to send it back to i j did make reference to  i'm going to sue her credibility she doesn't get asylum and even assuming she's in even without assuming her credibility she gets what he did both ways and to some so that the b i didn't and it seems like it complicates the appeal a bit if we disagree because i think there are some issues regarding if we assume her credibility i don't know that i necessarily agree and i'm speaking for myself with the immigration judges determination that she you know didn't resist and what i guess what's your response to that my response w to be that that with regard to the other resistance to family planning policy while the petitioners actions may have been a few years with the first instance where she  was placed with an entry uterine device an i u d that i u d fell out on his own and the immigration judge list these things within the decision regard to the second pregnancy the petitioner was terminated i'm her i'm so i'm saying that she did testify to that what's your position on that wishy or was she not terminated from her twelve the the she may have well been then as it is now whether or not  that she's faced economic deprivation and how this is since she testified that she was able to pay the fine that her husband who she also state it was terminated from his job he was able to obtain a job making many times much more money and they alternately paid the fine and she didn't express any any resistance to that but the financial penalties were rather steep were they not no they were not she expressed that she paid twenty thousand dollars or twenty thousand in their their denomination and if you juxtapose that with the fact that she paid thirty thousand to come to the united states and the fact that her husband ultimately taint a job that in and of itself is this question about that's listed under our inconsistency but if you look at the fact that she was able to have a second child a nd she remained in the country with the i u d m place for another fifteen years and from two thousand forward to two thousand and nine she did not express any disruption any any harm with regard to the family planning policy we have her knowingly violating  policy we have her landlord and her mother being fined for helping conceal the print pregnancy that seems somewhat distinguishable for me than the cases that are least there's one case out there that says having the second child alone doesn't establish resistance exactly your honor and we've listed a couple of cases in our in our brief in addition that was those instances that  were in nine hundred ninety four when she initially had the second child so with regard to the petitioner she remained in china for fifteen years following that birth did not attempt to have the i u d removed she came to the united states she was here for another four years and did not attempt to have the i u d removed with regard to the fine she paid the fine  without principle of objection initially she stated she resisted because they did not have the money but her husband obtained a new and higher paying job and they paid the fine within a mon she is not established that there was other resistance and or persecution on account of that other resistance and in addition she's been here in the united states for over four years did not attempt to have the i u d removed until she went to the doctor during her testimony she's never expressed what harm she would suffer  specifically if she went back to china and i would note that in the january when the united states department of state country reports on human rights practices for twenty seventeen ask this court to take administrative judicial notice of the united states department state country reports for twenty seventeen whereby the chinese government has indeed established a policy  for having two children so with that in mind there is no way that this petitioner could did at that time establish a well founded fear and she can establish a well founded fear at this point until mr was is there a torture i did not i did not see those that that that request well it wasn't a request it was brought up in the in the briefing by  it was it was not waived the arguments that were presented with and addition to what the agency found was that the evidence that this petition presented did not rise to a level where she established eligibility for for any relief i've never seen it where the government didn't respond to the cap relief once it's been raised so  presented compelling evidence to overturn the agency's decision that substantial evidence does support the agency's decision and ask that this court in either petition for review thank you thank you for your or argument presentations today or do you have to time left i'm sorry you had some time left please come forward given that it order for her to register her second child she had to pay five thousand dollars five thousand yuan it's possible there are other fines that she could still be subject to with regard to the one child policy and so given that her experience with the one child policy prior to that  including being dragged the first i e d including the fines that were imposed as well as wearing an i u d that washee certainly could have had it removed she could have been punished for that