clear example of where the real id act is used to dispose of a legitimate case where an individual with just tenth grade real education try to provide the court w sworn statements corroboration and country conditions that he was singled out for harm due to his secretly he was viciously beaten the doctor asked for proof from an american doctor to verify his stitches which he which on borne out by the record they alleged wrong dates in the decisions which the board of immigration appeals stated for the judge it was harmless error and then it went on to state its own wrong dates and any other court might just the gate on the wrong dates that they are alleging my client testified to two serious incidents where he was brutalized on august fifteenth two thousand and ten and  two thousand and eleven and he received no protection from the indian police he verified that he showed that and he provided a statement from his grandfather as well but the indian police refused to protect him when appointed rifle after he was hit with the butt and threatened with death they knew the police refused to protect him none of those facts were given any weight not only  allegations that is correct well three fine but what is your response to those claiming they're not substantiated by the record and they're not borne out for example my client stated he was exercising in his house and it was within the borders of his house when there was an open area and they said that's an inconsistency how can there be an open area he's got to be outside well unfortunately all houses on built the same in the united states as they're built in rural areas in punjab and he stayed he was exercising within the boundaries of his home he was very clear on that that is not an inconsistency he then stated he lost consciousness which he changed to semi consciousness  now that could be interpreted by you know why you don't care is why do you believe this inconsistency regarding days worse is unconscious is due to the translation why do i believe the days and consciousness because i think you say no in your brief that you think it's a result of the translation issue and i was just curious were there translation issues throughout this proceeding or what was happening you see and that's normal when you have these hearings the courts sort of fight into bits trying his best and unfortunately you make mistakes the the interpreter at mit's who made wrong translation dates he admits to the court he stated the date of two thousand and sixteen when it wasn't correct and it is grammatical mistakes he makes when he states he says no it was with my grandfather and counsel asking what you mean no as if that's an inconsistent he never said no he translated it was primarily him and his grandfather and that came with a no with the statement and then counsel pounces on him these are not really invasive dances designed in consistencies if you want to be fair you take it into the context  valuation of the petitioners demeanor while testifying how do how do we how do you address the strong deference that we have to give the immigration judge here thought on these credibility issues follow the law and if he doesn't follow the law and if the board doesn't follow the law you can uphold it he didn't follow the law he's got to look at the totality of the circumstances he has to look at the total record and what was it in the record think that he did at what they did is they avoided looking at the record my client received stitches for his back and he says go get a doctor in the united states to verify it he did he didn't look out whether he's gased where the semi conscious are cautious is not an issue for the state the point is he was seriously injured requiring stitches and that's what they're looking at they're looking at to avoid the medical is to avoid the medical record that's another issue on a vase of those you have to have at least some demeanor you have to have some examples there isn't a single example i can state over here i don't like certain people's demeanor is but they should be it should be based on the record nothing on it nothing is based on the record if you look at the record so you should give deference if it's based on the record over here the indian police did not protect my client they protected his persecut client was struck with a rifle threatened with debt beaten to a pulp because he did not join this individual's religious group was a very powerful individual at that time and we provided background and material to verify that if you want to save the balance of your time thanks very much good morning john williams on behalf of the government this is an immigration case where the immigration judge found that the petitioner lacked credibility and deny the asylum application and all related relief because the petition by the petitioner first was the grandfather the dates that the grandfather was threatened petitioner testified that the grandfather was first threatened on august fifteenth two thousand and ten however in his declaration he indicates that  the grandfather was threatened beginning in february two thousand and eight i thought he didn't really give a date when the threats occurred in their affidavit  he states in his declaration at miss rate of record three forty eight that on february second two thousand and eight my grandfather began to receive threats and that's what off stating on february second two thousand and eight the disciples of her him and his entourage were victims of a terrorism attack and he goes on to state in that second paragraph my grandfather began to receive threats from really a significant think consistence that is that is a significant inconsistent tell me tell me why because this is the one incident where the beginning where he's indicating that he was injured and he states that he testified that he was knocked unconscious however his declaration indicates that he was dazed this is a significant instant his life and yet he's indicating in the declaration that he was does a days now he failed to exhaust this inconsistency before the board he did not raise any challenge to this and consistency  so this court does not need to focus on that because it it doesn't have jurisdiction because you never raise that inconsistency well to the board let's talk about the hospital records how can you know can we say that in an immigration judge consider the totality of the circumstances where he didn't mention the hospital records well the immigration judge doesn't have to  mention specifically every article of the record that's fair but you have to look at everything in context and here it seems that the hospital records were the strongest corroborating documentary evidence that mr singh submitted so says not quite sure i understand why how the i j or the be a decision did not i don't have the cite in from me for that that specific yeah i think that's a c just just assume with me that he didn't because i didn't see a bit maybe i missed it but just assume for me for a moment that he didn't can you explain  that is taking into account the totality of the circumstances it's a fair statement what you say is that you know i take doesn't always have to mention you know hospital records so i understand that but in this case it seems like they were significant well they were heat and so he mentioned the op immigration judge reference that there were documents that were written in english and he questioned how they were written in english and was at the hospital record s it was yes one of the one of the one of the documents but the take in the totality looking at the totality of the inconsisten in the evidence and the fact that when you look at the third inconsistency when we go to the police report which again was unchallenged though to let's talk about that because  would you agree that the i j a cannot rely on an inconsistency to discredit an applicant's credibility unless the applicant is given an opportunity to explain the inconsistency was mr singh ever given an opportunity to explain why he did not mention the august ten because you just mentioned the police report why he did not mention the august temple lease report and his declaration i don't see that being raised anywhere in the transcript well and this was an instance where the petitioner did not challenge that inconsistency he waived that in his opening brief you just wait you just mentioned it right now as an inconsistency yes that how well he was he testified and he was asked by his own own counsel so you have a vase of testimony where he was asked about his own by is own attorney for the the the other area i want to ask about is the inconsistency regarding whether mr singh's grandfather received threats before the august two thousand and ten attack did mr singh have an opportunity to explain that i didn't see it cross examination if you could cite today as a record of record page one seventy two he was question about the date when his grandfather was first threatened and he was a vase of about those those  those questions more to the point he was asked in addition about following the attack on august fifteenth two thousand and ten who took him to the hospital by his own attorney and he was a vase of about that he stated that some unknown person his counsel asked him again who took it to the hospital and he repeated and unknown person going to his injuries his own attorney ask him how long were you in the hospital and he was a vase of about telling his own attorney how long he was in the hospital he was asked by his own attorney  administrative record one fifty six did you report the first assault to the police and he was a vase of he stated he stated they would not take the report upon further questioning by his own attorney he then stated yes the police did take the report so by his own attorney the inconsistency regarding the police report where he made no mention in the declaration his attorney  own attorney ask him about those questions and he was a vase of about answering those questions those are just a few of the many evasive moments that are listed by the immigration judge threw out the decision in support of their decision and i see my time is winding down the immigration judge gave a long litany of of instances where this substantial evidence record does support the agency's decision and i would ask that this court deny the petition for review medical he says it was waived it was waived it was in ray's please go to transcript zero zero zero one six page three of my brief is raised consciousness is raise its central over there in his brief it wasn't avoided you specifically asked him about the police report he didn't answer he didn't answer the issue of the police report he then started mentioning facts of the grandfather that is not a fair he and a mission has to be had some bearing to consistency he couldn't give you one example my client stated the indian police did not protect him he made it a central issue of his case council never addressed and said well he said he went to the police and then he was a race because the report wasn't a report there's never been a report the indian police refused to protect him that's what he said throughout his case that's what the government u s department state documents prove no one answered did he answer to any of these issues that's not a fair hearing and you asked him a due process question was my client given an opportunity to respond never answered it well he wasn't he said on cross examination he was well that's not the law the law is if the judge is raising an issue he must give my client an opportunity of notice of what he believes  inconsistency on cross examination counsel is a professional to basically make up into an inconsistency and that's what she's doing mr williams also said that there are a couple of inconsisten found that that you don't challenge that that's completely incorrect i would just raising that right now you are not that's when my brief just raised he said the first issue was on the semi consciousness conscience some page three brief every single issue we raised every single issue that counsel race is not supported by the record it's not based on substantial evidence it's not based on any evidence sort of with regard to the hospital  records the suggestion was made i believe that the i j in fact referred to the records in some way shape or form perhaps when he mentioned a document prepared in english could you please clarify what the record reflects with regard to the hospital records did the i j refer to the hospital records directly or indirectly yeah lets you raise the issue of english is common sense anybody would know that india was ruled by the british english is the major language in the country every official document is an english they're trying to say my client is speaking english my plan doesn't speak english the doctor spoke english there's a contemporary of records that is again lasering on an inconsistency when there is no inconsistency a medical doctor prepared a letter in english at the time he was injured so it could get perceived script of drugs that doesn't mean my client speaks english so let me have any other questions so all right thank you very much thank you both mr starr for williams for your oral argument presentations here today the matter and case of seeing versus jefferson the sessions is submitted