case can independently establish the elements in the silent claim now in terms of credibility your honour's credibility must be assessed under a totality of circumstances in this case the petitioner is a person with a nd grade education who can barely be to write attempting to recall events that happened seventeen plus years ago and so we believe in this case that under the totality of circumstances that his testimony was credible whether he had to get a permit to have a child this seems like a short period of time at one point he says he needed a permit and then says he didn't need a permit can you explain that well your honor as i understand it in china the family planning policy is taught essentially in school and so what we're talking about is a person with a nd grade education i don't believe that he was really taught by the government about the family planning policy and so i know that he said you know as you want to point out he said that he needed one that he said he wasn't sure that he didn't essentially he's not sure but i believe that the country report speaks that one needs a birth permit to have children in china and he had a document showing that he actually paid for one that's right he was fine because he had a child essentially before marriage which is a violation of the policy and that's why you have to pay a fine for right i mean i thought i had to pay a fine eight because he got married when he was  have the permit right it's an early birthday early embarrassed so they they were married before of all they were under age and therefore because you're not married and under age you cannot have a child and so you have to pay a fine essentially for both and that's what i'm saying in this case is testifying to begin with an in a language that wasn't his own is that right well i believe that he said that his best language was food chain and although they tried repeatedly to get a food chain interpreter it appears that they didn't from right because mandarin is not quote unquote his best language and so he has a very thick accent and such is life i think that's probably why there were certain issues with communication at times ok go ahead yeah and  so you know in this case as i said it records of his testimony that the the corroboree evans can independently satisfy the elements of an asylum claim he submitted multiple documentation showing that his wife had an abortion and also what was sterile underwent a sterilization procedure and especially the one that was the certificate of marriage and birth of mobile people and jane objected to one of them because he  couldn't explain what his floating population was and that's right and even the parents and me and even the board said that this was unambiguous language in the document itself we all know what it said but there was no in  unreliability for this particular document it's simply that well if he couldn't explain it then i can accept it and i don't think that that should be a reason to not accept the document especially again he has a nd grade education and that's why i submitted in my in my brief i wrote about the country conditions which essentially states that the government maintains restrictions on your ability to move in work and residence but that people continue to migrate and expanded  these what was one of the things they relied on the fact that he couldn't remember when he made the arrangements to come to the united states well in that one of the very st question is when did you make the what was that was that one of the ones that was relied upon by the it was it was  we're going to have a problem if you can't remember simple as that when if you can't make arrangements and this coast all the way through the transcript in terms of i mean if you asked me when i made arrangements to do something to eleven years ago there's no way i can answer that question i agree with that you said he did say two thousand and six immediately and then what he got caught on was what month in two thousand and six they get something that happened ten plus years ago and then he ends up saying something because he's been crossed that's right and that is what happened throughout the transcripts actually kept being pressed when he testify i do believe that he was somewhat inconsistent at times but he explained those inconsistency which ones would you do you think were the inconsistency is the explained for example he was asked  whether he and his wife discussed the abortion before she had the abortion procedure and at st he says no and then later i think he was asked never and then he says oh well yes we did but then he explained that was because they not necessarily inconsistent because he said no as to the four there is why four and then he said well we did discuss it but he never gave it time right and then it was explained and also at that time he was saying that his wife was already in custody so i can see how we can happened so and they also said that it was somehow not plausible that they would have not registered the marriage for as long as they did right and that was one where he paid the fine for the early marriage essentially for the government to recognize the marriage so that the center they can give birth but he was still under age at the time so he had to wait at least another two years until he was of legal age to get a marriage certificate and then as he testified to well i just got on with law and we just simply forgot that in that event that was an inconsistent there was an inconsistent no inconsistent that's correct your honor it was not it is the judge simply says it doesn't make sense that you would do such a thing you know but again you know two years later when you're living your life you're working you're doing whatever it's you know why would you go back and get a marriage certificate when you know when you're working and doing other things and then one with regard to this thought his permit to have a child practice why i don't know i just did it right right and so i believe it overall i think he was credible you know especially again in the white of the fact that he's a nd grade education things that happened ten plus some sometimes seventeen years ago i believe in over all this testimony is credible did he actually say they didn't need a permit or he says they didn't tell me that and then he says we didn't even you didn't know was it something you were supposed to do we did not apply you don't have to apply is that the point at which they say he was said he did need to permit because what he actually said is young have to apply right and that's i think that's what they construed as not needing a permit when really he was kind of unsure and again it's because he was he had very low level of education he was never up basically we do not know anything about government policy the parents want to see their grandchild right now ok well same to photograph on two different documents none of that makes much sense that's slightly different line of questioning i think oh no it's the same employers or all the implausibility points right in the documents sort of after the credibility as an independent analysis i guess i well i mean that's one way to look at them but another way to look at them is that when you're looking at the record as a whole if you have documents  that there's no reason not to believe that they ought to be factored into the overall credibility determination so that well you know the the board decisions is independent of the credibility to understand that document so ok but what about not independent of the adverse credibility finding what about why the adverse credibility finding the fact that you have with documents that there is no reason to discount ought to go into the credibility determination well the way i look at the documents is do they make his case why do they have to independently make his case why can't they simply help to somebody who was actually trying to be fair about whether this man is telling the truth or not would you consider the various kinds of problems that we've been talking about of that as education about the language about the fact that he was frankly being bullied by this judge to saith rember things that nobody would ever  are on their face comport with his story and that there's no plausible reason to discount part of the credibility determination of rather than pushed off to the side until you've already decided it's not credible ok let's look support an adverse credibility finding right we believe so and what i'd like to know is what because it does seem like and you i appreciate your concession up front that some of these are not independently the strongest grounds what are the strongest grounds why are we here what would support that they adverse credibility finding so so is an initial point in the record forty one times he's asked a question not questions with compound sentences ago you know when you get it but he know when you planned it if i were in living in a regime which forcibly aborted my my my unborn child and i was asked when did you decide to leave that awful regime i would say the day that that happened i knew i was getting this isn't about where does the inconsistency i think we've got diverted from where's the inconsistency there he says i don't know forty one times and then what he comes back and says so the inconsistency is so with regard to the events that happened in august of one thousand nine hundred and nine he's working outside of his village his wife is in hiding although she's working in plain sight in a factory the parents are kidnapped he says they're kidnapped i don't see anything in the country reports that this is a normal procedure for the chinese government to kinda but but in the is there it did he ever say they weren't kidding i mean where's the inconsistency so the inconsistency is did you speak with your wife about the abortion before she had the abortion he says yes then he says no when did you learn about the abortions that's the way is that accurate i thought that he was asked why did you speak with her before she had the abortion and he said no and then they said did you ever have any conversations and he said yes that doesn't strike me as and consistent but maybe i don't understand you know i've read i've read the testimony over and over i just it is so muddled and i've i find he says muddled the i mean that's part of the problem like i said you one question is whether we should give deference to the petitioner because he didn't have you know the proper translator but at a minimum you can't take the muddled miss the came out of that and use that against him i mean i think i think that's the baseline you know whether he gets more credibility for that that's a separate question i'm just wondering is the one i mean whether he had it whether he a permit was required seems to not the same thing when did he learn about the abortion he says he got a phone call from his wife's family he says that there was an exchange in real time his parent's release when she submitted for the abortion then says that he learned about it later he then also says that he rushed from the fisheries where he was working the same day doesn't say the same day but if you read what he says he rushed back to the hospital but by the time he got there it was already done then he says he also at another point he also says i learned about the abortion after i returned to the village so those can you know i had been a pretty good inconsistency i think you know and that is the crux of your honor i just feel like this is not these are trivial this isn't this isn't it here's a probable to him some of it is some of it is trivial and at least i just beat for myself i'm trying to sort through it and figure out where we can hang our hat on this because i don't i'm not body and on the implausibilities but if the inconsistency that you're saying that he gave different answers i think you're right to give different answers and you know as i started out saying some of the implausibilities if that's all we were here as a stand alone  we have a much weaker case but it fills out it fills out the picture of his narrative which is that his family unit you know this is a very human impulse to protect your family unit and your right to reproduce  that's why what he did with registering the marriage he registers the marriage for months before he decides to leave that's why questions about his travel plans you know he says that he's starting to think he plan four months in peru did you apply for asylum in peru so sensibly he's fleeing a brutal regime he's free and through and he doesn't apply for asylum he stays there for months and he's asked why didn't you apply for asylum he says that's not where i wanted to go out to defy me that's a different this isn't about unsophisticated that you know if you're fleeing something my wife has been forcibly sterilized you know you you you exhale when you get to prove actually what it suggests is that his motivations were different that at the end of his questioning he says there's a question something like would you like to go back to china but we had only i don't like china i don't like i don't like it any other reason i don't like it that i have a couple of the questions very quickly i mean i must say that my concern about this transcript over the language be the fact that you know we have some cases about this was inappropriately a intervening he's basically to cover the whole thing and be bullying him into i mean i read a piece before his another p c he says when do they come arrest your eleven years ago even traumatic things that the notion that you are a member of the exact day i can remember things it was exceedingly clearly that happened and i can tell you within five years when that happened so this insistence on him