we have across the country hundreds of thousands of cases from the immigration courts and that's the court the court we're all aware of the some of the newspaper articles that have immigration proceedings you don't have simultaneous interpretation and immigration proceedings not everything that the parties say the colloquy that takes place between the judge and the attorney for the government or for  we have put standard to the board of immigration appeals a transcript and i think it's mr run from still to this quarter to say you know you go to war with the army that you have and we've presented to the board of immigration appeals a transcript that indicates that the translation was not quite accurate notwithstanding that it wasn't a translation of everything that was sat in the courtroom and there is one it puts the burden on the wrong party and what it does is say screw it says well you know we can provide you with interpreter and even if you took mediocre if ultimately there is no prejudice then that's what you're that's what you're entitled to and  and equal protection requires that this court exact from the agency that they provide an interpreter that is going to be completely accurate because the time was limited i'd like to sort of interject here i think i'm understanding your answer to be that as a practical matter in terms of affecting the substance of the decision it doesn't make any difference because you're not telling me that you're saying no he's just entitle to an accurate translation and i understand your properly yes ok yes i have a that too but the b i made it on more narrow grounds and i might correct on that all right the question let's say if i agree with you that the adverse credibility determination relied on the is not supported by substantial evidence can we look to the more comprehensive decision to determine whether the idea is to terminations courted by substantial eviden i think we can and the question is what what's going to be the result by looking at that because presumably were entitled to having a dyno full review and to do noble review then it would mean that the board is not only looking in this in this case as you point out the board has made their own determination but i believe that what would be required for us because this is what we presented before the court is to look at and be able to say this determination now requires first to send it back over to the immigration judge because if if the immigration judge finds that he says you know you don't see revenge or for nearly fifteen months eighteen months and then all of the said he shows up at your house i find that totally totally implausible i find that's just completely unbelievable the boardwalks it's saying and they narrow it down i think that we are faced with this what we try to set forth in our brief or faced with a situation where did the board and then the immigration judge look at the i think that either either one is sufficient to have it sent back either one it's even though that the vote even if i understand the question from the court is if if the board's decision is much more narrow than what the judge that among other things the immigration judge talked to that well as i read that introductory class among other things i read that in favor of the board as merely a reference of examples rather than just say we the board rely only on these things i'm not sure i can read the board of immigration appeals decision on credibility as actually resting on our grounds than the why but help me understand why we have enough ground to reverse the i j a and credibility i've asked the court to look at two items one the judge found that there was no doctor's l provided by the i pick and by the respondent i don't know that simply because and this court has already held just because you don't have independent evidence to cooperate your claim that your be denied or that should be you should be found incredible seems to me that if in this instance he responded before the immigration judge responded indicate that he's afraid for the well being of that doctor if he is found to in some way be providing aid or assistance to him even though he's here in the united states that's not a reason to find an incredible that's one that's on the doctor letter number two two number the judge can understand why is it that rigor after not having seen him for such a long time would drop by his house and here it seems that if the respondent before the immigration judge testifies he says look this fellow came to see an agent over there it was dark and he decided since he knows where i live he decided to come by and stay with me that was fifteen or eighteen months fifteen plus months from the time that he last saw him it doesn't appear to me that we can now draw the conclusion that it prevented or hadn't seen our client that we that is almost an unbelievable story i think it rings more of truth that an individual would say to the court you know i have no idea he was coming over here to see the agent and this is what happened here it was dark other factors came in that to me those are two specific instances where we can come we can come to conclusions say we're not we cannot accept a fine even credibility just simply because that doesn't make sense to us here today thank you know well give me a little time to respond of the government looking to the immigration judge's decision and citing some examples from the immigration judges but largely finding that the immigration judge's decision is supported by the record accordingly in that type of a circumstance this court said that it will review the right we have one met several and five times you know that that doesn't seem you're good to me your honor it may be quite right in that what the difference is between several and five times is you have a hard time getting out of counsel but again that was one instance among many right in the media all that you're relying on and give me your best argument on that well they're largely sided by  consolidated brief provided by my office so what i'll do is you know there's a list of at least twelve reasons given in that brief rather than read those all out to the court and i can do that if court wants but i suggest the court may want the government's focus particular circumstances the immigration judge here it's expressed difficulties finding or understanding who exactly misters mon was he there were three different names he'd gone by it was hard to tell who exactly he was that's one aspect  further he did not have a driver's license and he had some school records he had some school records and a driver's license but why the passport wasn't produced that's unclear whether the school records related to him again since there were three names is one other difficulty there is for the question of the failure to provide affidavits from family members from a man with whom he lived in new delhi all of whom  available and all of whom he was apparently able to contact indeed he got the driver's license in the school records from his father he indicated by was any able to obtain an active from his mother from his father from his maternal grandfather from petitioner in that case and here we have the circumstance of it may be that the father or the roommate would not corroborate that type of those types of facts therefore the board is allowed to reach that negative implication regarding credibility based on the absence of evidence from his father was not arrested at the time of mr man's arrest now that the supposed the precursor to this arrest was the visiting of the friend to the family ranch now that was on a ranch owned by type of a case the authorities will arrest both persons and bring them in there for the fact that that pattern wasn't followed brings some more doubt now what we do need what i do need to reaffirm the court is on is this fact that nobody comes to the board of immigration appeals or the immigration judges with a presumption of credibility everyone has the burden of establishing that the testimony they're providing is credible and in this ramones case all these difficulties in the story  cause create doubt in the immigration judges mind and in fact did in this case for that reason the question is whether or not he met his burden of showing credibility and in light of all these particular difficulties with the story presented the immigration judge and the regional fact finder is allowed to reach the inference there is a credibility problem that not enough was present that there aren't enough explanations one i think one of the areas was that it seems to me that it was a difference between the and but here that the determination that the two were inconsistent isn't that would be doing here because once more specific than the other seems to be what the board of immigration is  know you know obviously i when i see someone in that list and there are asylum applications that they were raped and people were murdered in front of them and then they get up to testify and forget to mention that that's pretty significant so on the other hand if you say that there are several things that happen or whatever and then you go into you testified in more detail when you come in and testify on the court that identify that you know sort of pinpoint the difference between several and five is a real hairsplitting effort now that may be the weakest example relied on by the immigration judge and i'd like to remind the court of the night of the supreme court's decision in the united states versus our piece where there was a type of whole record review at issue and supreme court explain that a court's task on review is not to conduct a divide and conquer approach that it's not to shoot down every example independently or enough of them to look at all of them yes exactly i mean i think it's looking at the people that are they are understand all of that correct and i was just reminding the court and again overall based on all these considerations the question is whether or not the evidence compels a finding that mon established his credibility before the immigration judge and in fact in light of all those difficulties that would seen problematic for mr monk let me address a few more questions a couple of first couple of points i'd like to make are really in the government's favor i think you've not made at least a complete case in support of the i j a is adverse credibility finding for example on identity you didn't mention the i j s discussion of the passport the said well you testified that this was your own passport and the you'd gotten that passport in preparation for a trip that you were going to take in the end you didn't but you traveled on your own past for the normal pattern when people are smuggled through canada on false passports is that the agent smuggling them insist upon a surrender of the passport but this is not that case isn't under your own testimony you're not traveling on a false passport you're traveling on your own passport and i find the fact that you the passport not consistent with the ordinary pattern certainly your honor and the second point the i j a says he finds it odd not so mother he did say it was odd that mister his friend mr singh would show up after this interval but he finds it even more odd that the police would come back to your client to come back to the petitioner mr amman about seventeen months later on a second match the sorts of stories that i've previously heard that seem to me to be credible ok that there's a couple points i think in your favor and we may get a response and rebuttal i don't know what i'm going to do with what i should do if anything and what we should do if anything with the following by a considerable margin and i do not know what to make of that except that list doesn't respond to evidence and by asylum seekers in the same way that most of the other right of any of the other right is do what i supposed to do with that ok of possible decisions that a fact finder can make the question before the court is whether the all reasonable fact finder would be compelled to make a different finding it's understandable that the court might be concerned that there's there's bias in the among the immigration judges or that one immigration judge may need to have his fact finding a recalibrated but again before the court the court has an ample record in this particular case of the problems that were confronting the immigration judge it had at the board immigration appeals looking that in an appellate situation and trimming that the proceedings went well enough if there say i'm not saying that this is this particular judge is a bad j i've not saying that but i am saying that to be i was not shown itself as particularly capable in sorting out and getting rid of that i  i think that we there isn't substantial evidence here to support that decision and i can only offer to the court that come next month  will be twenty nine years that i've been doing immigration cases and i've worked with the agency as well as the trial attorney and i can say that and looking at the various points that your honor have incredible particularly if a non citizen is telling his story and there isn't anything there that he can offer to the court as to possibly why he doesn't have that identity document that passport or that he has that affidavit if he doesn't have that affidavit that we can now simply conclude is the court points out you know this doesn't match what i normally see but i'm going to find that it's so incredible that this is i'm just going to find that it's incredible and i'll deny your application i think that i think the facts of this case is best as they were developed