office presenting the arguments today for the whole ten minutes very fine thank you i think the facts of this case are undisputed the immigration judge in this case declined to make an explicit adverse credibility finding we ask you about one of them it's not the most specific but it's it's one that just struck me just as i was reading it the guy claims to be peaceful but he joins an especially violent faction i  w bunch of radicals back in the late sixty's early seventy's and if you were hard left wing but you were almost opposed to violence you did not from the weatherman faction you did honor well in making that determination the immigration judge is relying on the country profile provided and i do not believe that he correctly states the evidence in the record of all the country profile it to forty two states that while most all indian sixteen in federation factions claim to be opposed to the insolence many members have committed violent acts and when you use that phrase your reading paragraph actually supported the specific thing and it makes the strain the violent prone mehta trial which implies that maybe some members all members to certain parts of that faction are prone to violence w testified to when he was asked about the medical or group since he was on one forty eight there like some people all of them are saying people some are saying by force and when you read paragraph nineteen in that country profile with paragraph twenty and then later on  in the record on to forty five words as many speak organizations renounce the use of force but then that there are persons within each faction that do and that's been violent i feel that his testimony is entirely consistent with what is presented there in the country profile mr singh stated that he did in fact carry out peaceful activities but does mention on one forty eight that they do say that they are peaceful but some are using violence which is completely consistent with the  regarding your first point regarding that i just did and whether in fact this is adverse credibility terminated and you mentioned that he has made decisions regarding implausibility i would argue circuit said that he stops short of making and it's left an adverse credibility determination and i think that's exactly the situation we have here in this case it seems to me that the immigration judge in his fairly lengthy discussion it's eight pages it's out of his way to make it clear that mr singh his mind has failed to meet his burden of proof but nowhere does he make a broad sweeping statement regarding the overall credibility of the testimony in fact he specifically lays out five concerns which we feel are actually based on speculation and is not supported by the record if you go to the record the petitioner in this case mr singh did in fact testify credibly and detailed to the politics that she was involved and during this time fifteen to twenty two years old and twenty two at the happy end when he left and during his testimony he states several parts regarding politics that are true and consistent i remember when i was fifteen i didn't i wasn't nearly as political  case before and i asked asylum well before the immigration judge and before the board of immigration appeals and none of those bodies found mr singh to be credible under substantial evidence standard this court should not reverse the immigration this is an adverse credibility finding what is your interpretation of our law in this era you've heard this quinn's view what's your view  four in page three of them a gratian judge's opinion there is no doubt from the context of this opinion that this is clearly an adverse credibility case top page three in the latter account of your claim next sentence in this case the court finds at least the respondent has failed to carry his burden of proof and then he explains why and everything that he explains goes to his credibility because we're all dealing with of the things he provides to it to the immigration does it is an election card and it has the wrong birth date on it for him five years difference between the birth date that he has in his asylum application at page two hundred eighty five and two hundred ninety two immigration judge was decision was actually just affirmed by the be i and we are here today trying to figure out what exactly the immigration judge meant and all of us here have debates about whether or not this is an adverse credibility finding or not he has mentioned improbabilities an inconsistency but i think the government goes too far to characterize this as an incredibility finding in fact in their own griefs they've never made that claim that there was in fact an explicit adverse credibility finding is the first time we're hearing that regarding the election card again i want to express that he needs to be afforded an opportunity to respond to any issues regarding credibility of the number tells us that and there again on the first date ever brought up and he was never given an opportunity to explain and again this is an minor inconsistency that would not go to the heart of his claim in this regard and m bone agel erico to tell us that and credibility determination must be the beginning of the inquiry and that we must start with that before we delve into the reasons offered by the immigration judge thank you carol yes to argue it will be submitted for decision will now he arguments and good luck versus eleven