MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
believe absolutely everything he said and one of the things he said was my wife my wife told me that you know and we believe that she told him out but how do we know if she was telling the truth how is the agency required to consider when minutes though the person who makes the statement is never under oath the witnesses before the vi is under oath so that declare that the wife in also we have the picture showing the scar from the wife was that these matters were questionable value and of particular they were of questionable value just given the very very poor and incredible testimony that was presented on the chinese student body over to your client's hand before makes it very make that very questionable in our mind whether you presented good evidence over here especially when we can't verify we have known we have verified this information and you are willing to give that information over here so that makes it makes it very detail and that struck me as a curious thing to rely on here if someone is here and their spouse is in china and says i was sterilised i'm not sure what detail is
or discrepancies between petitioners testimony and other evidence or lack of evidence in the record the heart of an asylum claim either standing alone or cumulatively cannot be substantial evidence and cannot form the basis for an adverse credibility finding it should be noted at the  petitioners position that these inconsistency were in fact not inconsistency that there was sufficient explanation for any apparent organizations in india and that he was knowledgeable about the organizations and about his involvement claimed involvement with these organizations in his home country in order to constitute substantial evidence for credible adverse credibility finding it's my understanding that based on one circuit president that there must be a legal articulable basis and specific reasons given for each finding of adverse credibility which we believe in his declaration he stated that he did not know whether a bribe was paid and an affidavit from the village sarpanch referred to with matter of a bribe being paid we submit the petitioners officially explain this discrepancy by stating that he had no knowledge of whether a bribe was paid and it's of interest to know that in our three zero five yen kissers declaration he alludes to the fact that there was another person in his same village who went by the same name and the village start  to confuse that gentleman with the fact that if i was fake for him as opposed to petitioners particular case second reference would be yet in our fifty eight which particular police unit arrested petitioner i believe for his first arrest and at excuse me  very much to the heart of his claim it's the essence of his claim it's not a minor inconsistency like what color pants the police were wearing but it goes to the very nature of a very central event motivation which is the think consistency with respect to whether he was beaten with a stick in his declaration or is testified that he was beaten with a belt again this is the infliction of alleging persecution is going very much to the heart of his claim it's not min documentary evidence is not necessarily needed if pictures testimony is detail consistent of possible we submit that it is in this case its significance you know there's no inquiry on the record as to whether or not these documents were in fact generally credible what does that mean we submit that it means that if there's a presumption of credibility if there's no adverse credibility when he specifically made on the record we submit it wasn't made on the record here because the
affidavit that we felt to it were not in compliance because either the affianced didn't have the requisite knowledge themselves or they didn't attach documents to porti j's office did have the current address in exploring that is it correct that they got documents to you was it nine times at the right address for this day how many times petitioner had at least noticed that a decision had been rendered when her counsel received an e mail on december first stating very clearly that it dealt with her case and that also stated the decision has been issued now in that that there is a deadline in play while that deadline is still open and they have time to file and motion for an extension it's highly unlikely that equitable tolling will apply and the reason for that is  that second meal in the mail going from cincinnati to laura i am not positive on that but i believe you're probably correct example where the opposing counsel noted that a certificate of service must be sufficient when serving a complaint in this case there was no question as to the stakes of the matter because provide the explanation it also decided that madison had reasonable notice that it had been issued and that issue that madison should have at that time exercise due diligence nine so many words but in the language of the it wasn't true the required form change was there were some obligation to act when there wasn't any question about what the stakes were of that particular stage of litigation because not very long before many medicines council had filed in opposition to the motion for s custom we look at the mail the next day because it comes in late so we got it we looked at it we addressed it unfortunately the time to have been able to one file most to a large
there when they were that specific what was the time of the information relative to the time that they went out and searched they got the information on day one the next day the probation officer
membership in the mormon church basically well i want to torture but  compelled a different result it even you acknowledge some of these things are just kind of i don't know because i think it's the testimony over all these in the individual hearing that was held to separate grounds one of them being waiver the other it's always there anyway well you challenge the waiver around you know that was right for the consideration especially considering that he so i think the i g may have been just trying to cover his bases in addressing everything in his decision but really he was not making any finding on that after go to the heart of the claim because they also to do with the alleged mistreatment that he likes to know that he claims that he experienced during that detention and so any one of them could be sufficient but the fact that there are so many of them is overwhelming evidence for an don't know if the doctor made that out and as your honor pointed out why would the doctor make up something that they actually told him and and if he did and i just wonder discredited his case you know if you have a doctor that reports incorrect information you can't credit anything a doctor would anything that would rise to the level of suspicion and especially because he was claiming that he was fired from work afterwards into you persecution as well and the fact is that there was nothing and yet it instead showed that he would experience future persecution nothing ever happened to him after his release and he remained in china for a year after that release and nothing happened to him during that time and there's
reasonable suspicion of alien and based on articulable facts and in this case the border patrol agent that stopped my client on the street in palm springs stated himself in the of the palm springs police department asked for the well that's it's unclear if there was an allegation that my client had made a false report to the police about what we don't know  us not just one without reasonable suspicion has to be in regions well and i think it is because you know here's an agent that has ten years of training and this court stated before the border patrol agents have training in the didn't take the stand in front of the i j a because the i j a informed her that she would not be able to take something that that was incorrect that she could well she could have taken the fifth amendment and that she fact that when when my client got back to the border patrol station and she was interviewed in our dando deny follow regulations requiring him to have the interview done by another officer the judge by the immigration judge put it into some finite terms we would suggest that those cases that the court has decided in the past would lead to the conclusion that this was not in the greatest situation but that's because of the violation of the regulation to through  the court said that the issue that supported a look at yet another officer had examined the person in that case whether the ins would not have discovered that that aliens illegal little bit of ignorance i'm taking some of this on face but as i understand it the officer is the regulations following properly and he is a separate officer interviews in order to get the information from the eye to one three an officer will s any information you give here on the record on the form can be used against you in ministering proceeding on the form why is that warning given in most administrative proceedings the border patrol officer circumstances of the questioning and then the arrest he's going to testify that she told me that she was mailing yes phone but of course he didn't provide her any warning anything you say we can use against you border patrol officer or a vandal when he first met up with ms musk he hadn't apprehended her and we weren't in a criminal situation where he was doing an interrogation where
on one straightforward issue and that is did mr trujillo adequately meet the charge filing requirement when he identified the store in which he works and burbank illinois the address of the store the phone number of the store and then directly inform the e e o c the precise correct legal name of his employer based on four well settled legal principles that covered in the briefing that i'll discuss today we believe the answer is yes mr  court just because the o c dropped the ball in the court basic principle which really follow us in the st three is that actual notice is not required of course when everything goes right and employer does receive notice but the supreme court hard to see how a generous construction would result in mr trujillo being denied his opportunity to pursue his claims if it's ok to look beyond the body of the charge rock which furniture l l c was specifically named to the  if it's not appropriate to hold mr trujillo responsible for the deceased mistakes it really doesn't make sense to hold him responsible for the e e o c as mistakes and lack of notice while unfortunate it's not a get out of jail free card for an employer and other companies that hold that license to sell food always but with without but where the address and phone number would make it pretty easy to tell which was right with the address or phone number would do it would make it more likely are you familiar with the mark mining case and where the failure to conciliate was offered as a defense yes right yes and the supreme court said actually no the remedy is just go happen if an employee brings a charge that names the university of notre dame and not its proper name the university of notre dame to mock well it in that case i don't cases that hold that you would be on the charge to determine for example the scope of the allegations contained don't relate to the proper or naming of the employer itself that was
pointedly or allegedly made to him that his disturbed lies fam the focus in that paper is wrong what happened with his wife and it is a little bit unusual than a direct threat to the applicant is not commented upon or not discussed at all in the paper that he's preparing seeking asylum and then later he testifies and he put the best why don't the immigration judges like it i think he's really saying you know if that really happened there would have been discussion of that in the asylum application what do you have to say to that and yes your honor i was you are talking about september type interview or even a credible fear interview don't apply because the applicant has the opportunity to put down whatever the applicant thinks should be included as well that yeah i'll it's like i said  decision be affirmed and importantly the record does not compel a contrary conclusion there is substantial evidence in this record to support the judge's adverse credibility determination and this claim that is the potential evidence to support the liberation judge's decision even if the members of this panel would have looked at the evidence and weighed it differently so long as this but stansel evidence exists the immigration judge decision is due to be affirmed so just because you could even take judicial notice are we actually have evidence from the state department's country reports that forced sterilization can occur in china that's not enough to show stories that can be reconciled and the used to really becomes is the recall and relate at the time one of the first two times the more complete story that is given at the hearing  applications the judge did not overemphasize the credible fear interview it's just another instance when you look at time and he tells a different story it raises an exegesis head how could you forget something s it's actually not the case that this strict you know one thing only one child policy actually often can depend on where the family lived for instance if they live in a wrong area oftentimes they are allowed two children and i think there actually is some
the court is giving him some advice and you because you defend and ask if the officer was going to be there for a hearing and the court explained we don't subpoena you have to file the motion
i understand that there was not another document that we out or limited that we didn't believe that the court was going to dismiss on that procedural issue you know i mean it was just day transfer i don't know what the if the two years is pastor not of the three years more accurately i guess that's never been about the stops that correct correct but i think that's very inappropriate my client never read and i just i'm
see there are two ways sealing ring even though it turns out in action to be equivalent in function way and result whether you could have foreseen predicted that that  written testimony or are let's not let's let's i'm asking both counsel to provide us with in a week with the full path to money both witnesses at the original trial in one nine hundred ninety four and at the proceeding recently before judge starr i wonder if that was filed initially on the first appeal well anyway needham is needed from them proceedings of both of these witnesses i will read the testimony so there's no need to spend time saying it says this or says that we'll read it or i will see what it says yes ok it's kind of the standard the context here quickly should you have to win but it all prior or there is no single or as symmetrical arrangement or reigns it was always this generation or or some structure which was symmetrical there's was having difficulty trying to adapt the law to magnets to a product like this and this product is really a small compact product and anytime you dealing with that type of a structure you're running into  in which the dominating forces are gritty magnetic forces which are very powerful so there were a lot of difficulties and we went through that trial like and the trials more and the trial had
those results i submitted to the judge judge rejected both of those consults reports on the grounds that are not supported by the us but specifically he said that dr macdonald's psychological sense went did not indicate any functional limitations or when they may have occurred unclear to me i mean the focus you're making the focus on the chronic sinusitis just as one of your two errors and i as i went through the mail geez review of the evidence and the second the headaches or are they focusing on something sort of the effect of the headaches it's long clear to me how the headaches play into it if somebody says i got such a severe headache i can't work whether it affects my memory or not i've got these severe splitting headaches i can't go to work is that the nature of the the poignant evidence or is that somehow just sort of it not exactly morphed into this mental impairment really goes to the  in addition to a modern limitation with regards to inability to understand detail demonstrations he also said that she was not limited in the village to to concentrate on an extended period of time here and she was also have had the same question do you have something she says she alleges disability due to headaches and a limited short term memory memories that that's what he says that page three of his opinion and the only thing i can infer that work there after to ninety three just recorded and said at that point many persons do have headaches and so are able to continue working and that's borne out by claimants actual work activity since those headache i would think so from the description  and that's a job where you can sit down and stand whenever you feel like it the court of occasional expert testimony and you don't have to have a good short term memory like who just came in my or whether if you are watch from the record that you're saying show the effect on her performance i mean the government is arguing that sure she had the headaches but they were there all along and she's been able to function so what's new we would argue that the difference should be given to the opinion of dr mckinney maybe not so much with regards to dr youngs he's not a specialist and his reports were just assessments he did not write an evaluation but dr mckinney was very concerned yes but you just didn't make a determination this ability didn't offer anything as to whether she could or could not work he didn't say whether it was her functional limitations work i mean he just basically thought that her condition had been stabilized and there's nothing for him to do as the surgeon and then he was just out of the picture i
the bank which made them made some positive this representations or something because she signed these documents and this representations on the documents were made by the person that she hired to get the loan she made the representations even though this representations may have been made by the person that she hired but she is responsible for those misrepresentations is she what i river that she's the reason why did this moment was made she made she made the representations of the bank as to her income and did did she not  that was within that was made by the person who was doing on her behalf was or am i misreading the record we sue is referred to a mortgage broker correct and a mortgage broker completed the application correct and and  origination there are only very long defensive claims that relate to unfair and deceptive debt collection practices by the current service era and the current holder of the bone because they are continuing reform knowledge that there was a problem with the world that's when arrives it should show your arguing that she knew that almost immediately because she was unable to pay make the payments with the fee had so really goes back two thousand and eight
came feedback from other employees us as to performance so to say that he did not engage in any evaluation of their capacities or qualifications wouldn't have had that same level of experience you know that much he decided he made it clear that part of the reason he was picking her was because of her experience in diabetes and that's her recent than saying that when the different than saying that the only reason he picked it was because of her age i'm sorry in november he had started in late august he was a new comer as a newcomer he came with instructions he was hired by the diabetes unit in the states in breach of water by the vice president are there by a diabetes mr freeman she said this is what i know about the candidates that information needs to be completed because i do not have all the information on mr savva law and you need to consult with h comparison that mr sowell has seventeen years of experience in marketing products not in diabetes and he adds when he sees woman forty he has male over fifty and he turns question is why was the notation of age put into the comparison dark mysterious thing given explanation she put it on her own and she did not give an explanation i have to say that for a chart  over forty and not over fifty their diabetes experience was the common thread in this decision and even if they can be argued that they had comparable experience because they had many years the marketing when they completed yes by hand held by in h r she was the one who had access to the performance evaluations and she's the one who completed the information because she looked at it and she which is the lowest evaluation in the grading system and also valuations were prepared by rd parties so even if we say diabetes xperience should not be that important which that's not the case preference of mr and i won that was her diabetes experience there's nothing in this record to indicate that there was an h animals on the part of that any of the defendant in this case what we understand is happening here  and he admits that he's seventeen years of experience where oh what fifteen of those years were focused on cardiovascular products entirely he may have had a  unless you can show that when he adopted that preference for her at the early stage he did it because of her it was the evidence that at that time you know because the only information that he has at that
there's no time to talk with  myself i was just wondering about what
math in the car and then when he gets up and there's nobody else around right nobody nobody's got nobody threw a bag underneath him but he gets off on him is the defendant takes his hands and excuse me  the the evidence argument with regards to the jury instruction of the senior leaders of this was none here because again that this would confuse the jury especially with the issue of  instruction is the first real to determine whether there's some evidence even very slightly evidence supporting this sort of theory it's not the courts rule to wade evidence and to say this is more probable than this or the officers are more control this this gentleman sure that could have and probably would have argued all day long if he didn't know it was there what does he need an instruction for the other instructions include that of the possession right he had to know it i mean that's one of the elements is what justice overstreet was talking about earlier he had to have knowledge yes yes this what is it which is why this other instruction almost becomes supplier for us if you're talking about knowledge then voluntary act may confuse the jury you're right but you may have a point on the other argument that you've raised
are certain facts when we get back to statement considered in light of the evidence we're not really and i think there's a certain thing i'm trying to figure out give me an example of what determining what
think there is some theoretical possibility of damages out there one there would be i can only speculate it doesn't seem to be specifically on the shooters in this case and there's nothing in a murder that would even