mister richardson right yes you know i think if you think you have reserved two minutes so you'll have eight now and two later you'll get a warning about the seven minute mark we'll give you a couple of minutes to get started so go ahead want to characterize adversely he stated that he didn't get the passport and two thousand and eleven because he was in fear that he got the passport and two thousand and eleven because his family wanted him to emigrate in order to make money isn't that right on what your point is he didn't try to argue at his in his testimony that he'd always been in fear and that's why he got the passport and he was trying to salvage this issue of the passport he acknowledged that he got the passport for a different reason and that it was only in two thousand and fourteen after these other incidents that he began to have a level of fear that he's relying on for his application immigration judge relied on may ask you about one of them and you'll have time to talk about all of them but the the birth certificate the birth certificate is in two languages one is english english language says that the person whose birth certificate is this is is female is there anything in the record that says what what it says in punjab e or whatever the other and i can't see anything here other than a bureaucratic state maybe there's maybe or the other side is making an argument that somehow this is not that and that somehow this is one way to jump to deceive  grandparents would be witnesses that one might expect letters from if that were the case but then it turns out of course that their deceased coming friends could be drawn that this was an attempt to mislead enough the finding of the immigration judge can be overturned if there is a compelling explanation the immigration judge correct me if i'm wrong didn't the immigration judge  inquire as to the interpreter who was present at the hearing not the interpreter who translated this but asked that interpreter in the relevant language is there a application is application so that his mother sent him quote to go live we have grandparents and he didn't say i went to live with my grandparents it was just a statement that his mother sent him were and then ultimately what he testified and i think during direct testimony he said those mother sent him to his maternal grandparents place which is different than saying to live with my grandparents and that that's the difference right ye if we find that it was error to rely on the alleged omission of the two thousand and eleven events or the two thousand and eleven fear and if we find that it is error to treat the female birth certificate issue as an inconsistency or something that bears on his credibility and if we find that the immigration judge and the reliance on the absence of corroboration falls through because that's based on the same business about not mentioning two thousand and eleven and we are left with a contradiction about grandparents house or grandparents is a part of your argument that we then can't be sure whether based on that single inconsistency that remains the immigration judge and the would have reached the same credibility adverse credibility determination can be relied on because it will help me ok help me out with this ms this is judge lanch i perfectly well understand that if an applicant writes in his application i'm in fear because i was beaten in two thousand and fourteen and then he comes to to the hearing and says i'm in fear because i was beaten in two thousand and fourteen and also you know they did terrible things in two thousand and eleven to two other people and met i was already in fear from that and that's that's two things now i've got to support my asylum application that clearly would be an inconsistency and the immigration judge would be entitled to rely on it but that's not what happened here is it  fourteen after that exactly and then and then on cross examination he was asked and i think this is a very reasonable question for the government to ask but isn't it a fact that you got your passport not in two thousand and fourteen but in tom the point of the question is that that would tend to show what i would tend to discredit his claim that he left the country because of fear because he was already intending to leave in two thousand and eleven he was asked are you afraid now if he then left it at yeah i was afraid all along and i'm sorry i should have said that all along i've been afraid from two thousand and eleven that's why i was seeking asylum that would be an inconsistency but he didn't do that he eventually says not under fierce cross examination but he says on redirect you know i'm not relying on i'm admitting to you of course i got the test for it not because i was in fear so what is the problem why is it a problem that he didn't put in his affidavit that he had concerns for his safety at some point in two thousand and eleven just because he's hanging out with these guys significant mission in my teen years because this participation and involvement occurred prior to joining the party and this you know guy mentioned that a trivial admission wouldn't count or wouldn't be able to such a thing but that he has to put in his application anything that could conceivably in the remotest way bear on his entitlement to asylum yes to put in the application what he's relying on and and maybe if he was hanging around with these guys before and had some concerns or some fears why why does it matter that he doesn't include that if he's not relying on that and if it also doesn't bear on his credibility with respect to the passport because he acknowledges openly that at that time he wasn't so much in fear but he was getting a passport to try to get out of the country he got a passport for economic reasons and then for whatever reason never used it now he claims he only used it and this has been is consistent position all the way through once the events of two thousand and fourteen put him in sufficient fear that he had to leave the village in the st place go live with at around his addition or elaboration of detail this was he presented his claim that everything that he feared and his whole issue was leaving india and his inability to reside there a speech started based on his participation going it whatever it is and that's what the generation said you're on are basing this finding on it and this court has held that when there are two permissible views of evidence the fact finder strike between them cannot be clearly  can tell you consider what happened to him after he joined the party when he was beaten on a couple of occasions and that the fact that he might have incidentally on cross examination admitted that there was appears before that doesn't  mean that if he was beaten by a bully when he was nine years old he really ought to include that because that's another thing that he was afraid that one time in his life in india well no your honor but this is the distinction here would be fair in tw argument that the the early getting of the passport undermines his claim about why he's leaving the country or if he were using it to try to bolster his application but i'm having trouble was some error in the birth certificate bitch which which did in fact quote unquote according to you or put a team of question in the fallon of the right so why would why would an error in a document that he did not create affect his credibility with respect to the events that put him in fear or anything else that's relevant to the case your honor because even though  the question is as your adversary argued there are four things in this case that are relied on and the question is if they're not all accurate what happens next so the question here is does this have any bearing on his credibility and i'm asking you to explain why it does i understand it's not the only one so it would have some bearing on his credibility your honor because his proffering a document which had all information  would would in fact or no one contends is not his actual birth certificate issued by the government agency in india that says in english language that it's clear he does not fluently speak that he is a female which he is not and for that that reason he is not to be believed or that is something that contributes to disbelieving his story about his involvement with the sikh political party and is the adverse it was issued so be elated leave right before or is a new one that you've got from here or something like that what's what that sounds a lot more suspicious than presenting this but he could have explained that your honor and he he was given the sure it was translated and before their information judge he said that he did and all the documents they had been translated or read back to him in the language he understood they were accurate he had counsel and so i do think it i and suppose i agree with you about the but it is a very potentially a significant inconsistency does the agency say that this was a significant inconsistency or did the agency sort of certain that the agency would have reached the same result if this about the grandparents or inconsistency about the grandparents was the only thing that was a question for his credibility itself to sustain an adverse credibility determination and the judge said this was material because it relates to responded to period of hiding from persecution in exactly there would be witnesses presumably his