good morning hours may it please the court my name is an that mr singh's inability to testify about quote the figureheads and events which purportedly demonstrated his political activity and involvement to undermine his credibility those findings entirely based on speculation it's inappropriate for he was passing out flyers for this individual who was martyred for rallying in his behalf but he didn't know who the figure was or what a part of the was so it does seem like get people to go to who sure i mean i think if people why is the ad supported by substantial evidence i think the main issue here is he testified that he was publicizing the rally he was passing out flyers to invite people to come to a rally he knew what the rally was for it was to celebrate a martyr carnal thing is true and other murders he did define murder he just didn't define it quickly a month later on cross examination so that words it's not a question there's no requirement that a person have to know every historical figure every bill cabul a word this isn't an educated farmer he's not a person who is you know claims to be or ever has claimed to be deeply involved his education level or his deep knowledge doesn't necessarily prove anything he's not required to know the test right we're just looking at the determination that it was impossible that he would have no idea  supported by the evidence well the problem is that the i just speculating about what you need to know to be a political activist this is kind of like if i'm just so he's just passing out flyers for a rally for an individual who is a martyr and he doesn't who the individual or the martyr is right i don't see why that speculation just seems like common sense well i guess the thing is he was persecuted because he was passing out flyers for the rally it doesn't it's not relevant particularly how much he knows about the person if he's christian and he doesn't know every book in the bible or he doesn't know a particular christian figure that doesn't mean he's not christian or doesn't have a sincerely held belief we don't require that people there's no legal requirement that he know details about a person more importantly in this case the agency the board said he didn't know who a key figurehead was but there's no evidence on the record that colonel singh is who is a key figure head i've been litigating cases on behalf of sikhs for you know almost a decade i had to google that person he's in fact not actually a key figurehead but the point is the record doesn't support a conclusion that he is a key figurehead or support the conclusion that mr singh didn't it was not the figurehead that he was inviting people to rally to celebrate well there was a rally held in his honor but whether he can figure out of them on party and of the political movement that mr singh supports is a separate question and to go to g his temple and to be told we're going to have this rally hey can you pass out some flyers now he's all the sudden being required to know all the details of what this rally was publicising that's not and in this court it's not in this the jurisprudence he's not required to know all the details and so it's impermissible for the immigration judge or agency to speculate that a this person was a key figurehead and b that his failure to know exactly who this person was by the way i go when free and freedom fighter who died in the fifty's is not doesn't make his his claim for a desire to seek a separate state of khalid on a sincerely held political belief that then led to his persecution so that speculation has to be rejected similarly the kinds of whether he voted or didn't vote those kinds of things are not required to make a political claim he doesn't need to vote in order to be in support of the mon party but he never did he didn't but who did voters seem to be very ignorant voting sure but we're talking about a person who had minimal education was a rural agrarian farmer and and we're talking about a party the party who is a fringe party who rarely has candidates on the ballot that you could even vote for so voting he testified in the record that he perceived the movement as more of a social one getting people to come together to support this cause rather than participating in electoral politics and not participation electoral politics is not required of a political claimant and so to speculate that if you don't vote therefore you can't have a political opinion is inappropriate for the agency this court can't uphold but i suppose the i j a can put all of this information together and believe that this person was in fact a political activist i mean i think you're making the argument that there aren't any specific requirements that you know this or that apophis not really what we're looking at here imposition on to somebody else a rural and educated farmer from the punjab about what he must know or things he must do he must vote he must know who all these people are otherwise he can't present a sincerely hel belief and that's not required by law additionally her demeanor finding similarly unsupported by the evidence she said that the board said that there's a radical hesitations so there's ok hesitate and here there sporadic irregular and the board's decision doesn't actually cite any places where he hesitated the iges decision does she said that one was asked what was written in one of the pamphlets that he hesitated before answering he was asked what kind of pamphlets which is actually not what was written and he said that his father had given them to him and then when asked what was written he testified very specifically it was what was written in the normal conversation that's not the kind of thing that can supported a demeanor finding additionally with regard to requests that question to be repeated the agency concluded that there were frequent ten of two hundred sixty eight maybe eleven of two hundred sixty question be repeated that's not a frequent request for repetition and i just characterization that he asked it that most question dear pete it is certainly not supported by the record so again that demeanor finding this is an example of an immigration judge that's trying to hold things against a person that's not that are not supported by the record and those are the things that this court cannot sustain i'll reserve the rest of my time ok thank you please the court good morning my name is lori were like and i'm here on behalf of the responding attorney general of the court to deny this petition for review because the agencies are versed credibility determination in whole is supported by the record and it certainly cannot cannot be said that the record compels contrary conclusion again we're on review here in looking at substantial evidence not how we are or you or i may reweigh the evidence in the first instance  honor explained judge who to common sense about what this applicant would likely know if he had been participating in these political activities as as he had testified was within the immigration judges authority to consider she never said that he must vote he never she never said he must know every detail of all these people and studied she simply said that she found it implausible that someone who was proclaimed to be devoted to this party and who was i claim to have been arrested on three different occasions due to his participation in this party know the details of the things that led to those arrests and for of course he also said that his father was actively involved in this party for from i believe twenty years before he joined the party in fact he was he said that his father was arrested several times of maybe twenty years not acar but for many years prior to his joining the party his father was arrested several occasions and actually left india and went to england due to these arrest however he didn't his father apparently did not encourage him to participate in the democratic party process he didn't say that his father encouraged him to vote prior to any time that he joined the the man party and he didn't i don't believe that he did have the opportunity to vote after joining them on party i believe that that you join them on party shortly before the first arrest but there's no indication that he engaged in the political process prior to that and there's no indication on the record that his awareness or interest in the man party only began when he actually joint what's the strongest evidence that you have that that the petitioner was not credible well first of first i'd like to point out that all of these answers were hesitant the first of all that point was never exhausted before the agency and so it's actually not within the jurisdiction of the court to review the prior counsel for mr singh only alluded to general challenge the simple direct question if there is one aspect of the record here i gaze decision up hill by the the just really demonstrates this guy is not credible what would it be my impersonally first impression was that he didn't know who he was rallying for the second time he was arrested that he couldn't when he was first asked about the about this individual who was being honored by this rally he didn't even know if he was dead or alive he didn't know eventually got got there he eventually said definition of mars that would qualify as a definition but it seems that this rally was honoring him because he he died for this cause but he didn't know who it was and of course he said his father was the one who told him to go out and distribute these pamphlets but you would think after getting arrested at least he would have asked who is this person i mean never he never he never inquired or at least he never never knew and that's more than support the  going back to demeanor finding for just a moment your honor he was he asked he did ask to repeat a number of questions it was not most but it was within most of the lines of questioning by the council he didn't ever ask for a question to be explained he merely gave sort of bland a bland statement can you repeat that can you repeat that can you repeat that he never asked for anything to be repeated during direct examination his attorney was the same the council was the same from the transcript that they were about the same length of time and it wasn't that it was brief or that they caught the immigration judge only called him back and to render the decision there was the cross was done two months later and so the reference by of that because all this time it passed between the questioning and the decision a somewhat misleading because it wasn't again there was quite a bit of hearing left so to speak prior to the rendering of the decision or decision the same day  evidence he submitted affidavits or statements from his father his uncle the local man party leader and death certificate for his mother  suggest that the immigration judge didn't consider any of this besides the affidavits that the immigration judge gave reduced weight which is quite typical that reduced weight is afforded to affidavits that are not where the affiant is not available for cross examination in fact the immigration judge told mr singh who was represented by counsel throughout proceedings at the outset if you submit these affidavits without presenting the person or making them available for cross examination they will receive reduce weight but we proceeded the corroboration corroboration findings in that way but the point was that also the immigration judge in fact specifically addressed those and said you know these affidavits from these people are reduce weight because of the lack of cross but  also for instance you said the death certificate corroborated certain portions of his testimony that his mother died inadvertently in an accident where lated to the police coming to talk to her father about his father sees me about the man party but it didn't the death certificate did not support the context or why the person why his mother died it just it was a death certificate and then the statement from them on party leader there was a lot of confusing testimony about whether this man even knew m singh and he is the local sort of party leader from what i understand and he was mr singh was questioned about well do you know him personally when we met a couple of times ok so he doesn't really know you how can i mean  for you but then mr singh said well i went everywhere with him all the rallies with him and petitioner argues that that clearly meant he just went in a group but the fact that he's having to explain what he meant in hindsight suggests that the immigration judge at least counsels that the immigration judges impression was not what she heard was not inaccurate he said that the man didn't necessarily know mr sting he was asked if we call him and ask him who you are would he know and his answer was could be maybe he didn't know and so it's unclear how this affidavit could support his claim of having a well founded fear of future persecution when he may not even know mr singh or his specific circumstances course there are other aspects of the  here there's the implausibility findings because they're relying on so much speculation about what a person should or should know and what's what's required of him and the demeanor findings which are just clearly not supported those combined together to show the court very clearly that this judge was looking for ways to find the this petitioner not credible she was speculating about what he needed to know she was characterizing sporadic hesitations and and ten questions as most asking for repetition all the time asking for a question to be repeated especially in cross examination where you're unfamiliar with the lawyer never talked of hours and doesn't mean anything about your credibility just means you want to hear the question again asking for ten of two hundred sixty question to be repeated those kinds of things holding that against him and combined together mean that this judge was searching for ways to undermine its credibility because those two things combined together do it kind of undermines everything else that under the totality this at least needs to go