finding correct yes now this case is governed by the real idea act which mandates that credibility findings be based upon a totality of circumstances and consideration of all relevant factors this court has consistently held that it wanted a standard immigration judge cannot cherry pick facts which support that finding and ignore all the other evidence which would undermine that finding and yet this is exactly what the immigration judge did in knowingly submitted a false have a david in support of the asylum claim right well and i want to address stud just because when you actually read the transcript which i'm sure you have that's not really the posts here produced minute it seemed to me that that's what she said and she admitted it was false she said she admitted she saw the document before submitting it and she knew this for they were false one could say that the false the tendering of a false affidavit knowing it's false is substantial evidence to support the adverse credibility finding but perhaps one could also argue that other to quickly address this false document well but when you do i appreciate my good colleague's question because i think that looks at the standard of review and i hope when you're trying to tell explain to him how it makes the totality of the circumstances that we look at the standard or review because he's really saying if there's substantial evidence to sustain what the judge did is there a higher standard under the totality of circumstances which would say we could go some other place i q that seems to and that's why i look for a case to even do that and so when you're doing it i don't think that explaining the facts is really going to do it shipped me some precedent that says i can get there ok and i'll do it for example this court held and you're m immigration judge in this case completely ignored the petitioners consistent testimony which he himself found to be credible and consistent but the problem comes and i know you want to go there but my coll and i are trying to get you to go to the issue we think will help you because we're not sure the where you're going the problem comes in that the affidavit didn't agree with her testimony he never suggested that any false information until she was confronted she submitted it she put it in the record it didn't agree with what she was saying and then she was confronted about it and at that point that's when we find out she knew it wasn't exactly the way it ought to be you god gave you that even that much seen the document before and she knew its faults so that's why it seems to me you've got to have a higher standard legal standard even because if i look at actinic hack in made vs ins there's one where there's a presentation of a false document was absolutely a basis for the credibility determination and absolutely could be used under the totality of the circumstances if you look at it and i'm from otto so i don't even know how to say this you know i mean bear versus ashcroft two thousand and four case the same kind of thing came up that's why i think judge hellerstein question is most important can i go around this or you can judge again because there were so unlike the other cases yars in this case there was other documentary evidence which supported the petitioners claim for example you are as the petitioner submitted to records there was a medical record which confirmed her rape a brutal rape and also the bruising on her body there was also a court record calling for her arrest based on false allegations that she had assaulted a police or slandered them now what's also very well you know is that the immigration judge at the outset specifically said that these two documents are the most significant documents and yet he feel to give any consideration to these documents in his decision what was the circumstance you know there was some kind of a challenge to the authenticity of those that the judge said he was he or she was going to set aside sure what with what was the circumstances around that around why the i thought there was some report that came in there was or there was an anti fraud report basically that was submitted by the by the embassy and after extensive arguments as to the actual accuracy of this report the immigration judge over my objection admitted direct the report into the record but gave it is zero weight because of the fact that he didn't find it to be reliable because of all testimony that undermined the validity of these documents and immigration judge field to examine these doctors at least and his credibility determination to say that other than this embassy report do is nothing is have any that she was being hounded by the police authorities because they want to give up her husband he did not know her would you say that might have been part of the totality of circumstances you absolutely  focused only on the false statement it did not pay attention to the fact of being raked with no rebuttal evidence to say that she wasn't absolutely honor's but that's of let's go the other way is the is there any law or any precedent because thinking about this i've tried to think what we are really saying is there any precedent in our case law that says the i j a has to say what part that her test for me is credible and need not decide what part of a credible or isn't it's all incredible based on the one inconsistency that's the case law isn't it well i mean it isn't a matter of the i j a asked to go through and say well you're in your inconsistent about this allegation but consistent about this or you're consistent about that allegation but inconsistent about this what the i asked to find is there any basis for the incredibility determination and one instance can make that and then the whole over testimony is rather incredible and as judge heller sent well let's study said give me a case where the i j a found it incredible made an incredible determination and you have said on the totality of the circumstances saying and so therefore it seems to me that i really can't find if there's an incredibility in term of determination that there can be under the totality of the circumstances a credible  was she really raped was she really hounded because of a husband's political affiliation i don't know of a case that would prevent you guys you know your honors from doing so it is just that the cases suggest we shouldn't do so the judge says in is in this decision that the petition admitted that the ten the clarence did not see the bruises to the contrary you know as the petitioner stated that two of the female neighbors who are also in this affidavit did see her bruises and explained that perhaps they told the men on this affidavit that that she was raped and had bruises and therefore their name wasn't clearly affidavit so the judge is misinterpreting the petitioner's testimony the the judge himself acknowledges that not not all these ten fire ants are men there are three women on this affidavit and consistent with the petitioners testimony two of these neighbors did see her bruises so the judge saying that none of these people on this there question saw a bruise and yet they say they saw bruises is a mischaracterization of of the evidence and because the judge relates sorely sorely on this affidavit which again he mischaracterizes and then completely ignored again credible inconsistent testimony of the petitioner which he himself again found to be consistent and two other documents which he himself found to be the most significant documents which again confirm the fact that she was barbarically raped that that she had bruising that does not meet the totality of the circumstances standard honors you know  his time is gone ok all right we'll give you a couple minutes for a thank you sir from counsel for the attorney general that petition i was not credible and the record does not compel a contrary conversation as you've rightly pointed out yarn as the standard of review here supports affirming the agency's adverse credibility finding i think a woman would say i've been raped two times and she wasn't i particularly armenian society i don't know your honor i'm you know i'm not privy to that she was hounded by the police because her husband had run away and the police wanted immigration judge may not have stated explicitly that she was raped but the the immigration judge is not required to write an exit visas on every contention pretty  any case that said if your testimony given all the other circumstances seems credible but you submitted a single piece of paper that had a falsehood on it that could support i'm saying that none of your testimony is true  as i witnessed evidence given by the women and acceptance of that and hearsay statements given by the men even say those words that some and then she tries to get away from the document she says her sisters told her that the neighbors were trying to help her in every way and the sooner not have any male neighbors and she says yes and do you know why these men said that the police regularly rationalisations about parsing the evidence and saying you know some part of it is true and some part of it is untrue it really does not address the core issue here which is that it fails to meet the compelling evidence standard now if i may honor there's a nd part to this case which is the merits of the case we do believe that they should be denied based on this independently dispositive adverse credibility finding but if the court should you know reach the merits of this case it should likewise deny the petition on that on the basis of the merits of the case your same even if we accept her testimony as true i think that the no nexus finding i still support the nexus finding the immigration judges even you know really move forward to the merits of the case if that disposes of it like charge juries that if there is false testimony they are free to reject it entirely whether free to take that part who th apple spoils the entire car so we aren't so if we move them to the nd prong or the alternative approach it seems interesting that what the what was found was that it was unreasonable that she was targeted because of her political views now i appreciate that evidence is that her husband held the political view that she was only the way to find her husband i guess but it seems to me that the police would not have even tried to find or tried to question her would not have put her in harm's way if it weren't that she was protecting the anti government conspiracy if you will or the anti government person who is being there and yet what happened here is that they parsed it they said well it may have been that your husband was freedom voiced party or may have been that your good husband was anti government but the only thing they wanted out of you is to know where he was so they can do whatever they want to hurt you that seems a little tough to me i mean if i'm really looking at this there's only one reason this poor woman was involved her husband was anti government now we can say she said i government because there has been was because there's no evidence of that but we can that's what the police were suggesting care we know you are not the police did not suggest that they actually told her that if she produced her husband if she let them know where the husband was they would leave her alone and so that speaks to the looking for her husband and this court has ruled in dasi emily and which is a very very similar case with similar facts and totally refutes partition as i meant that she was raped because of the has ruled that if what you said if you assume that she was credible very well i believe the end and we disagree with the credibility finder the agency also looked at the actually looked at the merits of the credibility finding if you look at suggesting i mean everybody has suggested all the way through that she was not credible and so therefore even reading their record it didn't seem to me that i could really say they were taking what she said under cat as credible and then making a determination based on that credibility well based on the board's decision here you know or not they did look at the totality of the circumstances and the record that could not be really cleared up and because of that the judge did not even use the state department's report in making a decision in this case ok the reason i'm asking about that is that obviously if there were evidence that she falsified two other documents and that somehow were borne out on the record i think that might change the complection of this case entirely are you i mean does the with the agency need to be given an opportunity to sort of sort through that or is that decision also specifically states that they are giving zero weight to the findings in the anti fraud report even though they found that it was probably admit it but it's being given zero weight which means that not the findings that are being taken into consideration the credibility termination and because the judge separate and apart from this anti fraud report did not make any determination about these documents there's zero evidence in the record that these documents are anything other than genuine and authentic the only reason your honor that was one of the reasons but the judge if there was a reason he would not even admit the report but he said this by the fact that you have an opportunity exam cross examine the author of the report i'm going to admit it but he didn't give any weight because of the glaring inaccurate is inaccurate in a report for example on as they the report had to be concerned about the address of the court saying that you know this court is not on the streets on the other street but samir documentary evidence showing that no one fact this court is on the street and the judge himself family looked into that and confirmed it so the judge agreed with and we had lengthy argument as reflected a record as to why the information in this report is conclusive there's no basis as to why the author thought that for example of the female the clarence did see the bruises so again this was a somewhat of a mischaracterization by the judge moving on to the nexus one this court has clearly health for example which of the i'm sorry for example and not us that there is an inference of imputed political opinion when a petition is a family member of someone known to have a particular political opinion that the judge interjects this cough as personal beef that the police may have with the with the petition but there's no evidence of any personal beef between the petitioner and and the respect that they should husband and i the police be fair to be fair and you're going over a little worried about that but good to be fair there is no evidence in this record that any other person in his family was at all involved by either the police or anyone else in trying because of whatever it was he family member and also that there's an indication that the persecutor chose a victim because of the family members activities now the case that the government's side are two one million is completely distinguishable from this case there wouldn't have a temporal connection here within one week of the petitions husband fleeing the country because of his political activities the police start targeting her they ask about it every single time this point reports as well as this course holding it back to syria and that confirmed that the army and government routinely targets family members of political dissidents the police here every time came over it was simply she was targeting the petitioners husband's political group the same police came looking for