application on asylum seekers application where it was denied because his mother forgot to mention in her letter that she took him to a small clinic after he was release this is a case of an asylum seekers testimony which rendered incredible because of another person's mission in her letter and that is her mother that is his mother who forgot to mention that she took him to a small clinic your honor this is we purport that there is a failure to properly interpret the real i d act because the real i d act does not mention any missions at all much more missions of in this case here where what is being done is to determine the credibility of the applicant the omission of another person not even of the applicant is not is is not not only unjust but unfair because the application of the applicant here was was denied and now he's under orders because of applicant's application which was that he did not measure that he did go to the clinic he was able to explain that and gave a possible answer in the during the hearing this were that issue never came up any more during th a level so that is no longer an issue before this court now the government will argue that there that the applicant had inconsistency in his application and with that in his testimony no there is no inconsistences at all or in the application and in the personal statement of the applicant he stated that he was interrogated he was detained for ten days and he was beaten up now during the merits hearing he gave details of these beatings no that is precisely why his hearing so that the applicant has the opportunity to give more details and as the government attorney and the george asked more questions he was able to give more details this are not inconsistences this or in disha all credibility your honor also i would like to go back on the mother a mission the government and the church asked for an explanation from cow on why his mother for god he gave an answer i don't know and they found that as impossible now that is a truthful answer because he there was no way for him to get into the mind of his mother wife mother for god to write such a thing no jew process would have been due process sho would dictate that the mother should be allowed to answer or refute or to give an explanation of her mission was not given here there was no opportunity that was given to the mother and so a reasonable educator would be compelled to find a contrary conclusion these are minor collateral omissions and this court had opined in the case of  that minor collateral omissions should not should not be the basis of an adverse credibility a determination this also this court also opined in the case of zong versus us department of justice that the total context of the persecution should of the mother at this point your honor the credibility at first quite a determination only hinges on the mother's mission and not even on a mission the part of the the court i'm brett kenny on behalf of the attorney general this court should deny the petition for appeal because substantial evidence supports the agency's and first credibility determination i ask you about a couple of things that trouble me about as much as the documentary evidence appears to corroborate certain aspects of gauss claims and then he point he pointed to i don't know five or six and then he pointed to a number of other things other considerations which he said undermined the board of immigration appeals said that a number of those it cited only one in particular but a number of those says although given an opportunity to explain these discrepancies gow did not do so to the immigration court satisfaction indeed his answer suggests that part of his testimony may have been made up this is an  very well have been another one of those considerations that the i j a relied on that could not support an adverse to terminations and so they when you have this is a possibility of a nd the i j a also said that also referred to the demeanor of the petitioner but said that that wouldn't that that wouldn't be enough if it's that plus the rest so it seems to me that this is not just one isolated era by the i j a but but perhaps permeated with era maybe too strong a word and what happens is that b i a pix to that said could support it and it just troubles me shouldn't isn't this something that should go back to the i j a who may very well ridge a different conclusion when he was aware that the thought that he had made any number of example correct your honor but this court may not remain to the agency because under this court's case law and under the real i d act even a single inconsistency or a mission may be substantial evidence for an adverse credibility determination and the two omissions that the board pointed to as supporting the adverse credibility determination in this case do provide substantial evidence do constitute substantial evidence or good even even where the in the letter from the petitioners mother where she omitted the fact that her son had allegedly been mistreated during his detention that he was injured and that she took him to a clinic for treatment of the injuries and that's significant because she included other details of the petitioners released from detention including the fact that he was asked to write a guarantee letter that officer threatened to put him into jail if he were caught again and that he was fired from his work testify as to what she was thinking when she wrote the letter in terms of in terms of the rules of evidence as an initial matter the federal rules of evidence don't apply in immigration proceedings but apart from that the petitioner himself offered the letter as evidence of to support his asylum application and so he was the proponent of that evidence additionally this court has relied on it and but specifically the question is why did she not do this i mean that's calling for him to speculate as to what she was thinking no your honor in fact that's the point of the adverse credibility finding is that that omission was so glaring and significant that you would expect to find that information in the letter from the petitioners mother especially given that she said she was so frightened that this what happened the fact that she omitted that information  also relies on his answer that i don't know correct your honor probably a true answer and that's true but as the individual who is submitting the evidence in support of his claim he could have asked his mother to write an additional letter before he submitted it to the court or to clarify her letter this court has relied on similar omissions from letters in the past and finding substantial evidence for instance in land a patient claim that she was detained for twelve hours because of her practice of falun gong this court and the agency in that case pointed to the omission from a letter from her fall there about the length of her detention and this case is analogous to that one in which the court found that there was substantial evidence to support the agency's conclusion and that case also forecloses the petitioners argument that this court may not rely on an omission to support an adverse credibility determination in which footnote three this court explicitly said that there is no difference between a direct inconsistency and in omission in terms of supporting a substantial evidence finding  the other omission to which the immigration judge and board pointed to constitute substantial up and you would agree would you not that while emissions are properly considered they have to be evaluated of details about a beating that allegedly happened while the petitioner was detained and the fact that he had to visit a clinic to receive treatment for his injuries which is directly relevant to the level of harm that he experienced and goes to the question of whether his experiences actually rose the level of persecution the fact that those details were omitted and the fact that his mother omitted a significant portion of his alleged claim from the letter that he submitted in support of his claim constitutes substantial evidence and to explain that omission it's not enough that the petitioner offer a plausible explanation i don't know under the substantial evidence standard and the petitioner pointed this out is not a hospital it was a small clinic because they were poor and they could not afford to go to hospital is is a mother's instinct to do with to do so in the same way a mother will tend to her child without having to write about it because this is something normal and natural now if the government is but the fact that it's not included in the letter is that not  the agency can rely on in value waiting little talent the circumstances no judge the mother this is the mother submission and the mother should be should be given the chance to explain her own mission get that explanation from the petitioner who was not who was who is not in the position to think what the mother was thinking and why the mother forgot