i think one of things will be helpful as you proceed through them is that you know one can argue well maybe he meant this or it's not so bad to forget that we're operating under the post real i d act world so be helpful if thank you very much he returned to china from korea at the end of two thousand and eight and again said december two thousand and eight compare this with his written asylum statement though in which chen wrote quote on february fifteenth two thousand nine i gathered some church members which i knew well and set up our own family church in a way high city now we understand that these statements are certainly not identical but particularly in light of the different timing would you entertain a question yes absolutely i don't quite understand he didn't seem to be having any problem and south korea he post have been aware of what the problem was in china so he took he decided himself there was nothing  the record that he was forced out of soft korea he left a country where he was not have suffering and need difficulty or challenge and then moving to another country should how do we made a decision either he's made a decision and we still have to stay and or we would conclude perhaps that he was trying to get the chinese card to be played or he's not telling the truth there's something strange about that and how do we work that out and how can we how can we tell that think people looked at him when they came here th yes so first of all your honor i would respectfully say that the time in which chen was in south korea was the time in which he converted to christianity before ever returning to china and before facing this persecution so i think the fact that while he may have understood in general terms the situation that he may face in returning to china it's not as if he face persecution in china and then returned to south korea he that he converted after he left south korea no you and i believe the record shows that he converted while in south korea before returning to china and there is there anything on the record that he was not  not aware of how the chinese treat these house churches they only have four religions they recognize they're very restrictive and over the third law i believe in the record the only testimony that we have to that point is a general yes to the question of whether he understood the conditions in china but that said he did also articulate that he was there on a v so that could be renewed two times for a total of three years and that he stayed nearly until the expiration of that visa but for business reasons needed to return to china at that point was he aware that of south korea protects people who have similar views well your honor he testified while he was before the i j a that political asylum is not available in south korea he said that on page one forty four of the record he also described that he talked to christians that he knew in korea and he said we quote none of them had ever filed to apply for asylum but isn't that also one of the inconsistency is the i j a pointed  to not that his friends didn't apply for asylum but first he said well you cannot apply for asylum in korea and then later he says well actually he didn't know the asylum policy in korea so that was another inconsistency that the i j a pointed to as which of those was true in his mind right that that is true your honor that is one of the inconsistency is the i g pointed to a period of time expired march first of two thousand and nine and then by may he had come to the united states less than a year yes less than a year and a span of a few months during that time he went to church and  n started the church is that incompatible that that was a better that jay considered well he did say in his testimony that he gathered some friends and formed a church in china the i g took issue with the fact that and that specifically was in his asylum statement the i g took issue with the fact that that never specifically came up while he was testifying he said that a friend invited him to join the church and so he did that we would say there is kind of a difference between joining a church with a friend and starting your own words yes there is those statements are not identical i would again point to he said in testimony that he was introduced in december in his written statement he said that he gathered friends in february and so with that again they're not identical but i think that given that information the i j a was under an obligation to provide a reasonable opportunity for chen to explain that testimony she never pointed out that in the asylum statement that the timing or the exact statements were different and she was under an obligation to do that i want to save remaining time yes i want to thank you very much good morning your honour's my name is both stanton i'm here today on behalf of the united states attorney general there is a single issue in this case whether or not the petitioner was believable it just to give a number of reasons for doubting the testimony of the petition in this particular case and we talked a lot about inconsistency as we've heard but more importantly the documentary evidence in this case undermines petitioners claim that he suffered persecution in china indeed a medical report that he submitted that was allegedly issued at the time that he checked into the hospital is directly in conflict with his testimony if you go to the record at page two sixteen the medical report says that he had a sorry excuse me a soft tissue injury on assessed and on his waist and as a dominant area but if you go to the petitioner says to moni page one twenty six of the record he actually testifies that he had received a broken bone in his back and i can go ahead and walk you through the exact testimony that he provided he was question you don't know what kind of treatment they gave you on your back well the doctor treated me with some device there are broken bones inside how many broken bones there is one broken bone on the back how long did it stay in the hospital cord as according his testimony your honor he was there for three days when when was this other problem that he had about whether he was he had to go to the bank to get the money or somebody got the money from the bank here or happened there yes your honor the agency did know that his explanation for how he got out of jail seemed a bit implausible he explained that he actually went to the bank with his elder brother and a security officer from the police station who accompanied them to a bank he explained that he had to be there in person in order to be able to pay the fine that needed to be required to get out of jail and the timing of this is what part of what the reason the immigration judge took issue with he explains at least the petitioner did that the bank open debate thirty he'll have some time after eight am and when he arrived at the bank it was already open and the transaction took about five minutes or so then they had to walk back into the transaction took about ten minutes or so but the actual walk to and from the bank to the police station was about five minutes and then allegedly went directly from the police station after paying the fine or turning their directly back to the hospital and evidence that he submitted to show that he went to the hospital is that exact medical report that identified and has a it necessary to get checked out of there and then going to the hospital he found that was impossible to do in thirty minutes but there were all the also other things where act of the hospital after they had the yes he didn't go to the police station yet he didn't go to the  hospital until after he actually returned back to the police station but only after completing the transaction at the bank itself and so that was that timeframe that called into question the per the petitioner testimony here but  also interesting if you go to the record page one hundred six he actually testifies that he waited outside the bank while his brother went in to pay the fine but the whole reason why he had to go to the bank in the first place was he needed to be there in person to pay the fine but yet his own testimony says he waited outside so between that went it's unclear whether the rather or the wife actually got the money to pay the fine it seems from their record but the fact that someone went in the bank to get the money isn't inconsistent with needing to pay the money to a security officer is that is the reason why they went to bank was not to actually get the money this is where it gets a little confusing as you mentioned that allegedly the wife got the money or nationally then gave it to the brother then the brother had to go to the police station to get his brother and who was detained at the time and get a security officer to go to the bank because it was at the bank that they would actually pay the chinese government the fine to get it done so the bank was merely a place to pay the fine itself and they couldn't largely do that at the police station so that's why  had to accompany his brother and a security officer to the bank was a paper thing saying their record is such that the bank was not necessarily the place the money was obtained credit was the location of payment yes your hon right and this is the story that the immigration judge just found out it was a little too much to swallow specially with all the other issues that are that are on the record as well and actually going back to the middle career poor how this really does undermine his claim because he testifies that he has a broken back that's significant that's a hanson his persecution claim that's much worse than having a couple of bruises along his body and this is actually worse also inconsistent because if you go to the medical report it says that the head right face bruises on a space neck but if you go to the testimony on page one each one twenty four of the record all he testifies to is that i had bruising on my chest and stomach and so the medical report here does not at all substantiate that these injuries that he had you know he allegedly you know received at the hands of the chinese police are indeed true but these are the only issues that are contained in the record here we i also have a letter going back to the idea the documentary evidence really is where this case falls apart allegedly the petitioner got his wife to get a letter from one of his friends who attended the house church with him in china that letter is dated april twenty fifth but yet that letter somehow arrived from whether or not he kept the envelope that the letter came in any minute i did not keep the envelope that the letter came in and so the immigration judge found it unbelievable that this letter could get to china to the united states in a single day and then be translated in that time frame as well so the documentary evidence really is where this case does fall apart but then there are other issues as times fall apart and that's not the test we apply as to whether or not we sustain the decision in this case and i was have a documentary evidence certainly is to stanch all of its calling into question the veracity of the petitioner in this case other substantial evidence that exists on the record or the inconsistency is that the panel here already has identified in part for example the petitioner testified that when he came back from korea he had a friend who ensured juiced him to a house church in china but then his asylum application gives an and as we know in china because of restrictions on christianity these churches do take place in homes it seems there's nothing internally consistent between getting introduced to a house church by a friend and then starting your own house church is there your honor you have to look at the context in which that statement found in a house church is made if you go look at the asylum statement you can see it seems pretty clear at least the government that  was his first introduction to religion in china since coming back from south korea and so that is something that would be inconsistent in direct conflict with the testimony that he was introduced to a church coming back from china by a friend and those that's not the only inconsistency that we have as well but you also have his inconsistent testimony regarding how did you go to the hospital he testified that he was going to testify that is elder brother went with him to the hospital after completing the transaction at the bank well if you go to the asylum statement three zero one he actually it's usually three o two he says he was sent directly to the hospital from the police station so here you have two different factual sense on areas one is  he never told him to go to the hospital it was only after they pay the fine you got to go through his brother and then they decided to go so testimony does not at all indicate that he was a structed by the police station to go to the hospital but then you also have the other inconsistency as you've already noted regarding whether or not he could have applied for asylum south korea earlier on in his testimony a r one forty he is very adamant that there is no political asylum in south korea and then on page one forty a south korea ever tried to apply for asylum i have a lot of fellow members of church and none of them ever tried well a little deeper in his testimony on page one fifty he acknowledges when the immigration judge asked him directly do you have any knowledge about the immigration laws in south korea he says no so these in consistencies along with the documentary evidence and the possibilities within his testimony itself all provide substantial evidence for why the agency decision should be upheld and the petition for review should be denied i notice i'm out of time if there are any other questions be happy to take them but if not i'll sit down thank you thank you i'd like to pick back up on the point with respect to documentary evidence specifically all focus on the point that the i a e a pointed out which was the letter that the government's counsel pointed out that was sent by chen's wife from china the b i a and the i j specifically took issue with the fact that chen stated in testimony that he sent the letter on april twenty third whereas the letter was dated april twenty fifth  if you look at the transcript this all comes about when when asked when his wife sent that letter chen stated quote april twenty third when my wife that's on page two of seven at line seven this is the only statement april twenty third when my wife which we would suggest is not entirely clear but is the only statement for the conclusion and the b a's conclusion that there were major inconsistency is with respect to this letter to the contrary our position is that this is such a minor inconsistency that reveals nothing about mr chen's fear for his safety could not possibly be viewed as an attempt to enhance his claims of persecution and we would say is not a proper basis for enhancing the adverse credibility finding so this stuff so in the you go the history one but it struck me incredibility could take that into play while you're on i think that this is well was a minor trivial inconsistency i see that my time is running out but in that context he stated as a routine matter yes i still live in the address that the i g was asking if he lived at and it later became clear that i think his understanding of if he lives at an address was different than i g s he had returned to that address for the hearing but he no longer lived there and i think this is again a trivial finding that is not a proper basis for the adverse credibility finding thank you very much thank you the case just argued of gen versus bar is submitted i had also like to think the short for proti in the courts pro bono program that's very valuable not only for the client but for the court and i know for the government as well to have a very nice comprehensive brief though thank you both for your arguments this morning