order to undergo this a portion the husband was detained and beat and mislead turned herself in her husband was released and miss lee was forced to undergo this abortion later on she was fine hundred thirty and forty thousand armed after detailed testimony regarding this incident as best as my client could recall the immigration courts found her not credible on a few reasons the main one being that her testimony was be consistent with the asylum officers paraphrase notes which were admitted into court no verbatim account or transcript alone is not enough for negative credibility finding because it was inherently not reliable paraphrased notes are just not enough to find any consistency with direct accurate detail testimony there was also some allegations that there was in the consistency between some of the dates whether it be more to fifteen or march twenty second two for sure april fifteenth good morning your honour's name please the court my name is think of your story represent the attorney general of the united states there are three issues in the case before this court today the first of which is whether the record compels her versus all of the adverse credibility determination petitioners past persecution claim under the chinese family planning policy and the answer that question is no the second issue is whether the record compels reversal the agency's determination that the petitioner failed to establish an objective a reasonable well founded fear of future persecution based on who membership in activities with the china democracy party here in the united states the answer to that question is also no finally the third issue is whether the score should review the petitioners with the adverse credibility determination there were five bases for the immigration judge finding the petitioner not credible and under th court's precedent this court gives particular deference to adverse credibility determinations and in particular looks at where we are we do well actually the court is no different from any other circuit in giving particular deference to adverse credibility determinations were quite correct that's correct and because this case is covered by the real id act in in particular that has broadened the scope of what an immigration judge may rely on in finding a petitioner not credible things that are seemingly minor things that seemingly do not go to the heart of the asylum claim those are all fair game and what we have here is accumulation of five different reasons ms lee told her story three different times in her written statement to the asylum officer and then in her asylum hearing and details came out differently depending on when she was telling the story and i'd like to note in particular that the difference is an inconsistency these were not consistent meaning it wasn't that she left everything out of her written statement and then told everything to the asylum officer and told her the same thing in her testimony or that she told everything in her written statement and left things out at either being interviewed by this home office or in her testimony it was kind of all over the court would look at the remaining factors and assess whether the cumulative effect of the remit q cumulative effect of the remaining factors would be sufficient that a reasonable fact finder could have found the cumulative effect consequential enough to find ms lee not credible i mean what what we're engaging in here is not a well what do we think and then if that's different from what the agency found then the court reverses its what could what could a reasonable fact finder who found and i may prefer a different inference that to be drawn from an inconsistency the court might  a different in friends might think well it could be this it could be that so when we have a sort of i put it we don't know what to believe and as long as the agency gave specific in cogent reasons for all of the findings which the agency did here and gave specific and cogent reasons for rejecting the petitioners explanations then the court must uphold the integrate the the adverse credibility of strong nation as i see my time is running short i would like to turn to the china democracy party claim that i think the biggest difference here between this case and a lot of this this court's cases i mean i've i found pretty easily at least a dozen cases most of the one published but a few published where a very similar claims have been rejected by this board someone who joined the c b p in the united states who was kind of a low level participant and had not yet returned china here we do have the telephone calls that she claimed that she received and there was some some discussion about this association with with mr your home and and i want to point out that there is there's no evidence in the record as to what this association is there's no evidence in the record as to exactly what this person said to mislead when he called her in fact while we have to believe that ms lease sa that the person told her he was from this association we don't have to believe that he was telling the truth we have no way of knowing that and we have no way of knowing what is the relevance of this furthermore has this person refresh my recollection do i recall that i j had spillover from his credibility determination on to the c d c but the cia didn't know that that's  yes furthermore the caller did not say anything to the petitioner about any any threats that she any harm that she might face were she to return to china in my remaining few seconds i also want to just point out to the court that  court should not address the petitioners procedural due process claim because she failed to exhaust it for the agency she neither objected during the hearing to admission of the the evidence she did have counsel ye petitioners family members not being persecuted in china the i g found that my client didn't have a reasonable possibility of future fear that's clear error because both go again contrary to th court's precedent decision it is relevant whether or not family members who are not c p p members or bean being of viewed by the government and therefore system in any in the rise or any version or attempt to attempt to provide an alternative to the one forty six simply is frowned upon significantly by the chinese government so the argument has to be in conjunction with the country to deal with the country ports in the particular actions of the petitioner or klein is claiming that her actions were brought to the attention of the chinese government so she's on the radar and we do not want to send anybody back to be the canary in the min