the immigration judge denied all relief because the judge made an unreasonable determination that the respondent was not credible and that the responded to not provide enough evidence of his identity first i'd like to speak about his applied to identity that is not a standard which is found in the law i think it's so ironic that the immigration judge would deny this response in part because he did not provide more evidence of as his identity because the respondent provided those documents to the government when he initially applied for asylum the government acknowledge that they had received such documents the judge acknowledged that such documents were frequently lost by the asylum office and not placed into the record of proceedings you think the credibility that's referenced carries over our credibility or credibility as twenty issues i think the judge used both your honor and when you think regular ations are that commentary means that if you if you provide credible testimony does that mean you have to have your own asylum application be credible or does it just mean your testimony about identity needs to be credible in order to establish if there are no specific instructions and must be remembered that many of these petitioners first priority when they leave the country is the flea persecution and not to bring corroborative evidence with them and so the law allows for them to testify without corroborative evidence and so long a is credible they can be accepted for asylum this respondent not only testified in a credible manner but he did provide additional evidence of either of his identity first there's evidence that he spoke in the calvin language was that which is a language however his document records his birth as august thirteenth one thousand nine hundred eighty eight when confronted with this conflict he possibly consistently incredibly explain that he was born in a little village and his father took critical of the respondent in this regard the judge was projecting an american or western view as to how things should be recorded and how things should should be treated and viewed in iraq you cannot expect orders and reasonable for the judge to expect that things as they're done in america are done in every country and that records happening do you understand the links you have made  that possibility doesn't seem to me that's correct the i think the v i i dodged that question and they came up with two other reasons why they would find that the respondent is not credible and neither of those reasons  harmed so that basis on which the border lies is completely unsupportable and unreasonable the board continues that the petitioner skaven january twentieth two thousand before he was jailed while in his hearing testimony he stated that he was detained for two days the respondent testified and in his application for asylum he stated that he was held in a bath party office in the cell now that may or may not be a jail and so there's a distinction here they're saying that that is a jail when he's only described as a bath party on his cell and that he was able to leave that bath party cell before they took furthe action and took him to jail and so the reasons that the board has provided are also not reasonable under the law now one of the big question that i think should be addressed is the response to mean or respondent testified in a deliberate manner because the judge had repeatedly told him that these proceedings are important and that if he is found to have a frivolous claim he's going to order for the rest of his life and the judge told him that he should pause whenever the interpreter interrupted him and that he should wait for all the answers on surfing to be interpreted before he would his to respond and he followed those instructions and did and in one point in his case or during his testimony he answered too quickly and the judge instructed him not to do that and so he slowed his responses and then i the record that he was a vase of or non responsive to the questions indeed many times offered more information that then was required of him so he was attempting to give the court the full information regarding this very quickly the law says that if a refugee comes to the border and requested asylum and then that person must be taken into custody and given a credible fear interview at that time the government had established an asylum office on the border and to briefly while he applied for asylum and that case was being decided but before the case was decided the government realized that they shouldn't be doing this that the regulations require that these persons be taken into custody and he went to the government and the we agree with the immigration judge and particularly we point this out yes they can do it at least i believe they can it's strangely worded i mean at some point  two things the first thing that the board found was a credibility determination and what they said was that there was a conflict between what he said and this credible  testimony before the solemn officer and when he said i will if you will find this with page four sixty when was the last time you were arrested january two thousand i escape before i got to jail incident the thing about being held in a little office but this case before i got to jail i had a friend friend help me flee he told me they were coming f me and then further down and since then i heard i would i would still be arrested so i fled in other words where is he testified at the hearing that he was arrested now the second thing that the board found was that even if we accept his credibility all he has shown was that he was held for two days and slapped around he never did answer that in his b point out those two things that basically what he said in his brief was yes like all my life i've suffered all this prejudice etc etc he made a blanket statement that he had suffered something horrendous which was worse but the point is that those two things which by themselves that and the credibility issue now getting to the identity i will point out that identity is an essential part the conflicts in regard to his birth date and the variation in his signature yours raise questions about his identity now i would like to point out the credibility of credibility determination is not a finding that the applicant has not told the truth the applicant has the burden of proof of his first burden is proving that says happened to him in fact did happen therefore a method of credibility determination is simply a finding that he didn't carry that burden of proof you know the words it's birth dates and the signature variations aren't sufficient now more to the point the major part of the judge's determination was a demeanor evidence attorney general can ask you for fingerprints and you can ask for a photograph and you can't get asylum until identity has been checked against appropriate records but none of that language suggest said in testified to and wrote in his declaration that they threatened to kill him if he didn't obey their orders or join the bath party and when he left their office when he left that bath party cell he was an understanding that if you were caught again and he were not a death member party or a member of the bath party that he would be killed or disappeared or jailed now a government counsel brought up the point so basically  well they would have to review that but that's part of the record but i don't have that in my fingertips and the fact that he had or that he knew of other family members or persons who were harmed backed up those threats now when for a very important point that the government brought out in a credible three interview the question was asked in the credible for interview when was the last time you were arrested he answered it he said it was january two thousand so there was