in that it allowed two separate applications to be considered together and in so doing the immigration judge used material and evidence drawn out of one application and certain testimony from one side and used it to find adverse credibility as to the other petitioner with we did all the time yes the husband what's the story you ask the white folks the story different story if you think somebody is not throwing a true story there's no problem with that fundamentally but the way the court handled it was procedurally flawed and what i'm getting through there is that it's understandable that you're going to take one testimony and then you're going to take someone else's testimony but if you don't allow the second person to at least come back and explain certain consistencies give them a chance at the ninth circuit is continually held that that's a violation of due process sort of remember that in this case th prison instead she was actually in prison right well when she was away when he when he was arrested he was actually in a different part of cambodia so it's natural for him not to exactly know or it's also natural for him to maybe i misunderstood the question  thing that strikes me you're making a procedural attack here based on consolidation and yet there's a significant overlap in the evidence is there not they both claimed persecution arising out of arrests from the  depending on whose story you believe either two weeks or a month or maybe it was six weeks no one seems to really have it quite straight which is a problem for you so i don't understand why that's irrelevant i think i think it's rather because it doesn't necessarily go to the heart of the issue here which is the whole reason they got arrested because they participated in the demonstration but that's not contested they've testified that they have participated in them as well if if that's a contested why didn't they list again the something interesting initial application if we look at numerous cases that have come down from the ninth circuit in the fuel to the credibility thing goes a little too far people often get cut some slack in the ninth circuit where they're in consistencies on the theory that the applications are often prepared for them by careless preparers or dishonest preparers have they get a chance to explain so that it's possible for us to see whether i was unfair in giving credence to the difference but it's not to say that they're irrelevant sure and i can appreciate that point i was bothered here because the husband doesn't say he was demonstrating it as he was gathering and interviewing people for news that his testimony was fairly straight and then the wife's application does not say that they fractured skull and then her testimony she does that they fractured his skull and i didn't see an explanation of the difference and those are both things that i can't see how you could forget were being mistaken on or tell different stories on i can see how one might think one might simply say well i'm not i don't need to mention every single thing that happened to me in my application we think a little thing like school for well let me give you an example of another case to draw parallels to there was for example those small i don't know that there was one even i don't know that was not particular me asking what do you mean no opportunity the way usually works is the lawyer for the petitioner does the direct the lawyer for the agency does a cross the petitioner does the redirect and rehabilitates every now and then we get no fair opportunity because i j gets real impatient and says i don't want your cutoff we direct redirect them rehabilitates by getting an explanation oh sure i understand i think in these kind of situations when there is something that would otherwise be a material omission or inconsistency i think that there is a duty on the part of the immigration this with left out other than to say they were not asked that question but this apparently was the basis for both respondents were asked that i read that as saying he had asked them to explain to begin consistency between their seconds to do save time to point out i'm ok i think also i'd like to cover the issue of the meaner you use the blanket statement for demeanor they made no specific findings regarding to me or i think the ninth circuit is clearly how that's inappropriate and that's court we do have some case for good i don't agree with that actually but it's ok for that says that the i g is supposed to say i'm bothered by this what's your explanation and how do we deal with it here well point out to them that there was an inconsistency and that invite them to explain it to respond to certainly the immigration judge did that as to can he did ye haven't read every single night circuit case on the subject we've reversed immigration judge adverse credibility determinations for failure to give the sole testifying asylum applicant the right to explain the inconsistency here it seems to me we have an end usual case we actually have three witnesses including the senator for that and in part the immigration judge based his adverse credibility determination on a conflict in the testimony between the witnesses as well as fraudulent documents multiple use of false names does that distinguish this case from the run of the mine ninth circuit case where we've held that you process requires an opportunity to explain  it seems to me this is different from all the sole witness case because the record is replete with the immigration judge pointing out in consistencies within the evidence that he is viewing it in total and it includes inconsistency between the testimony the witnesses for example that the senator intervenes to get their release by petitioning the cambodian supreme court and the would be difficult if not impossible for the asylum applicant to then be asked by the immigration judge how can you explain the inconsistency between what the witness