big you know you're asking you're asking us or are you not to really weigh the evidence and we now have substantial evidence in the in before the immigration judge that your client gave many different dates for the is no no your no you see it you see these things are not done piecemeal if you have a problem with the translator that has to be brought up with the immigration judge the translator was during the so we cannot say that you have we're trying to you're trying to contrast the notes with the testimony of mr sebastian that's a matter that should be done before the immigration judge the immigration judge accepted the testimony and identity as a matter of fact and identify a number of different dates that your client gave for the death of her father before you can let me ask you the next question because i obviously you're not going to get anywhere you're just not going to concede that there's more than one date but what does that matter so what if there are different dates and i'm telegraphing to the other side for the death of the father why is that material in terms of credibility yes you are not we are as we are with we don't believe we all know because we don't hearing but what you are to the asylum officer she said something fearful from what she said at the hearing so your position must come down to to whether it was proper to consider the asylum officers rogers and good morning john cunningham from department of justice appearing on behalf of the attorney general let me begin by dressing the court's question to my colleagues which is which is what's the best case for for the petitioner in this case and that is the singe case decided by this court in april of this year junkers on writing for the court and the issue in that case as it was in this case is whether it's a referral an assessment by and i finally officer was sufficiently reliable to provide substantial evidence that could support an adverse credibility finding and the point i hope to persuade you on this morning is that all the indicators of unreliability that the court found in synch are not present in this case under oath here we have that evidence page one seventy one of the record second the court noted in saying that there was no evidence that an interpreter or translator was present at the interview with the asylum officer here we have that evidence there was an interview it was a translator sitting on the interview provided by the petitioner herself that is also at page one seventy one of the record third the court noted in singe that there was no evidence that the can at the conclusion of the interview the alien in that case was given a chance to summarize supplement correct add to the statements that you've already given to the asylum officer in this case if you look at page one seventy five of the record you'll see three typewritten questions  sebastian always worked from when he interviewed an asylum applicant and they basically gave miss cower an ample opportunity to say whatever she wanted to say to officer sebastien to correct or supplement or change what she told him this again is page one seventy five of the record question one have you completely understood the questions i asked you today through your interpreter parentheses if used answer yes question thirty six do you have any questions about the asylum process now answer no and third perhaps most important is there anything else at all that you want want to tell me that will help me understand your request for asylum answer no so miss cower had ample opportunity to give a full story  whatever she wanted to say to officer sebastien at the interview in singe the court also was concerned that there appeared that the petitioner and his counsel never saw the asylum officers report until the immigration judge issued her decision in that case the court didn't use due process or unfair surprise that i think was at the root of the court's concern here the situation was entirely different if you will look at pages one seventeen through one inconsistent stories what difference does it make that she seems to have come up with different dates for the death of other elements your honor is that she says that at the memorial service for her father her husband stood up and gave a died this confusion gave the immigration judge instanter reason to think that the father's death perhaps and certainly the memorial service and the speech never happened she was not able to sort of locate the time that this happened and that i think was it was reasonable for the judge to say well in that case i'm wondering whether any of what you've told me ever actually happens if you can't be straight as to when your father actually died and as to that point in synch the court reminded all of us that dates c slippery events there was a lot of discussion in the court's opinion on psychological studies and law review articles that point out that sometimes when we think of an advance the date is the least important part of it we can remember what happened and where it happened and who else why is it important here because of the father's because of the speech that the father that the husband allegedly gave at the memorial service that's that supposedly took place when the father died and the and when the when the asylum officer was questioning mr me that when you tell a story a in your asylum application then tell a story be to the asylum officer you have a choice you can either stick with story b when you testify before the immigration judge or as in this case you can go back to story eg but in either case you've got to have a reasonable explanations for why you told the story in the first place you better be able to explain why your subsequent story is different from what you first i'm sure say i was confused i was a fish out of water i'm not used to the stuff i was nervous explanation well that goes to another part of this debate where what else can you point to in the record i think it that the problem with the death of the father is that i read your ninth circuit laws that one could think it doesn't go to the application she testified that she was arrested once i mean i didn't talk about ok we pointed to write another one was the one of the police came to the house at a certain yes i'll talk about that all right she she claimed in her asylum application that armed the police raster her family her parents house came to the parents house and harassed them when they were looking for her brother her brother had been arrested she said and then was released and was put on a sort of form of probation where he was supposed to report to the police station every so often and after a while he stopped doing that and she said in her asylum application that they came to the house regularly and harassed her parents she also said and this is more and more relevant as to her she also said that after the incident the claimed incident where the speech given by her husband at the at the funeral service he was arrested beaten at least from the hospital or straight from the hospital and the police would come to both her house and her parents house looking for the husband now this is important because it brings the campaign aflame persecution close to home and brings a close to her as her spouse now not application that they did and she's and he said why use saying now that they didn't i made a mistake i was confused well that's what she said there seems to be there seems to be some kind of a problem here if you take a look at the assessment to refer on page one sixty it's applicants they did that after her arrest and release in ninety six police never came that's the assessment to refer but then you look over at his handwritten notes from page one eighty and it says after your husband was  her husband she claimed there's the second reference the police came in coming to the in laws house as well so they in law when did she get married after nine hundred ninety six you're mine but i can't remember exactly when i'm sorry can help you on that point i agree with you that the assessment to refer compresses too much it should have broken out but i think that the notes are there and the immigration judges all three of these exhibits were admitted into evidence the immigration judg