that the agency made in upholding the immigrations denial of the petitioners application for asylum but we're going to focus on one main issue because i think that will resolve the case allow us to move forward the ninth circuit last year in the matter of lay l a i held that in agencies adverse credibility determination was not supported by substantial evidence where it was based on testimony elicited during cross examination that didn't directly concerned the petitioner but instead concern persecution of his wife this court found that the petitioner did not rely claims that in may of two thousand and four he went to the family planning office to apply for a marriage certificate he was denied he was told he's not old enough then he was told that you and your fiance are the target of our family planning laws and you must submit and file a written statement promising not to get pregnant not to reside together and also pay a ten thousand you  security deposit my client mr ye disagreed with the family planning law and subsequently he was beaten kicked and detained for two days that is what his claim for some is based upon period everything that happened after that august of that year when his girlfriend got pregnant was forced to undergo abortion does not provide the milage ability for  overturned the i j a finding and demeanor said there is nothing in the record that shows anything inconsistent or lacking in candor in his demeanor and therefore the b s a overturned that issue with that was the only negative credibility finding that we threw attached to the petitioner we got in his claim person based upon being beaten and detained for not wanting to comply with the family planning law and that's where the analysis en because the b i e already overturned the i j a and so there's no negative credibility finding on that issue of course the be the i j went on to find two other issue saying i don't think there's enough spece is specifically in these really aren't the issues that the court needs to address courtney sutra says one is what what what are the things this mystery you say happened to him as a consequence beyond that his narrative the two day detention and beating the only thing else had happened to him was the one of the officers in the family planning that came after him was allegedly hurt when he fell down so he pursued mr he saying you need to pay for my medical bills you need to satisfied me and pull money for my mental anguish that was the only other claim he made that in it's in and of itself is not enough to come to our go forward on a face kicked in the stomach and ordered to do pushups and took laps in that case the court found this rose to a level of persecution the next is did the b i e a reach that question the not reach the question so if we were to set aside the at risk credibility for any we would probably have to send back for that issue i think it needs to be sent back to that issue and then the with instructions to be either sent back to the i g because he was actually i j who didn't decide didn't determine if these actions in and of itself rose to the level of persecution warrant i think would let the agency sort out which of them counsels judge school if i could interject a question to yes or no i have the impression that the agency was somewhat concerned with lack of plausibility of the basic story and one of the basis for that was that they thought after after ye and this girlfriend her fiance had made these arrangements to follow family planning policies that she went to a hospital to get an abortion and the agency thought that's not plausible because how could she go to a state hospital or something like that and the whole thing sounds sort of speculative to me i don't know if hospitals in that area are all state or if there's a mixture of safe houses say that suppose in private but i wonder how do you what's your answer or how do you address that issue well i would follow up on the on the court's analysis saying it's speculative because there simply nothing in the record that says that indicates state not a private hospitals work in conjunction with keeping records of everybody who comes into the hospital and  confirm said information with family planning that would that would basically be unrealistic that would assume that some very events computer software system exist in the chinese hospitals and say that the beach indulged in improper fact finding because what the i j a actually said was there was no specificity specifically regarding why the speaks i've seen a lot of these forced abortion cases or family planning cases i've never seen one in which the adverse action against the husband or father takes place at such an early stage it typically takes place at the about the time when the forced abortion takes place this one doesn't ring true to me that he says i don't like your policy and they detain him for two  days and beat him up i would agree with court i've been representing clients for approximately fifteen years when china with guarding family planning a forced abortions and i would agree that this is a unique situation in that my client mr ye actually stood up and voiced his objection at the first onset of being told what the family will plan unless and how it applies to him normally in these cases it's not until the state takes action against the person that they respond but with that said we have to take each case on its own and each petitioner on so on and he was unique in his protest and there was nothing in the record that indicated that that part of his testimony was at all not credible do we have any medical support anything beyond his bear testimony with respect to that to the the other bases basis was the fact that he had mr ye had failed to mention this period of time that he'd been in hiding on his asylum application is what's your position on that  credibility finding on that issue our position is that it's not a material fact that should be looked at as was i why wasn't this not on your statement if it's so material church claim or position is not it's not material to his claim he was asked about it he provided detail and detail answer but it was really only two questions and then the if you look in the transcript then the government moves on they just simply ask you how community put it down he explained it moved on so he provided a response to why it wasn't on his statement so it was more in the nature of an omission is supposed to an affirmative representation that's correct if we agree with that position yes there's the fact that he was in hiding make his case any stronger no not at all because he was only in hiding from this both the one officer who wanted to get compensation for his anguish that's not and in this case the agency relied on three specific cogent reasons for denying petitioners claim based on adverse credibility i'll discuss each in turn first the agency properly found that petitioner o we just heard the petition argue that the fact his client was in hiding did not add anything to his application because he was in hiding because he didn't want to pay money to you know one guy who'd been shoved around and wanted compensation and you know why why isn't that a permissible answer  to say you made a material is a mission because it sounds like it made out of mere irrelevant omission petitioner's story regarding this one officer is actually a central basis of his claim he's saying that when he went to make his other resistance to the family planning policy involving this family planning official official that he and that official fought and he was eventually detained based on this resistance to hit the family planning policy so this is an individual who's involved with with the family planning policy plan edition alee petitioner's burden is to show that he has a well founded fear of future persecution so it makes a very big difference whether the five months prior to him coming to the united states he was sitting at home and he was safe and no one was hurting him in that five months before he came to the united states however petitioner testified in court after not mentioning this on his asylum application that he was so fearful of these chinese family planning officials particularly this one individual who he stated had ties to people higher up in the government he was so fearful that this person and and this person's connections would harm him that he actually had to leave home for five months and live in hiding now that's a significant factor in whether or not the court whether or not the immigration judge might find that he has a well founded fear of future persecution in china so our position is that that was a material element that was amended from petitioners application  moving on to a second specific cogent reason for the agency's finding now the agency properly relied on the fact that a central aspect of petitioners claim was implausible and petitioner was the burden of party in this in this case and he had to show through consistent and persuasive testimony that each key element of his claim was true and petitioner testified that in may of  thousand and four he and his girlfriend were brought before the family planning committee she was made to sign a letter of guarantees stating that they would not get pregnant they were fined what he said a guarantee fee they months after that petitioner states that that his his girlfriend went to the hospital the find out if she was pregnant and at that point the family planning officials forced her to have an abortion so essential aspect of petitioners claim that that he that he suffered these this this persecution has to do with how the government would have found out that his girlfriend was pregnant now i know there's been some discussion about whether or order to know how that how the government would have found out about this pregnancy and petitioner is silent on how that happened in his application now when during during direct examination he again is asked to explain the story after he explains that his girlfriend is feeling a little bit nauseous and she's lost her appetite he says so she went to the hospital to check and then found out she was pregnant at that point his counsel asked what happened once your girlfriend found out that she was pregnant and he responds well then the neighborhood committee people and the birth control office staff came to my girlfriend's place and then grabbed her to the hospital to undergo the portion there is nothing there is there are no detail as to entirely plausible that he would not know how they came to find this out i mean she goes to the hospital she finds out she's pregnant next thing he knows according to him the neighborhood committee people on the  contradict his girlfriend's place how in the world would he know who made a call from the hospital to the staff and on the fact that he does know this strikes me as neither here nor there it's certainly possible that this partitioner did not  know however it's also possible that the way they found out considering that he testified on page one seventy one of the record that the same hospital that gave her this forced abortion was also the place where she went to find out her pregnancy so we know that this is that this is a hospital but does the government force the portions so so is your argument on this subject essentially that the petitioner failed to cooperate this claim and other claims that is notice and an opportunity to obtain the specific cooperation on page eighty of the record and on page eighty four on page eighty that's when immigration judge reminds petitioner and his coun act case and that he's going to be required to discuss or to to provide corroborating evidence in order to support his claim this is not a prior hearing it's not during the ninety day continuance that petitioner was granted support to despite additional documentary evidence that was not intimately forthcoming so so no the answer is that that the immigration judge did not issue an order to if the agency or the i j a is going to require cooperation they need to give give the person notice of what it is they want to corroborate it giving notice of what we want corroborated but the story of about the hospital or this or that that's a little different than just being on notice this operation might be required  is referring i think to rand versus holder yes so when versus holder does say that an immigration judge is required to either give an opportunity for the for the position or to go get that corroborating evidence either he has to give the time to go get the affidavit or he has to allow the alien to explain why those affidavits are unavailable and doesn't need to be specific to the issue is supposed to which you've cited to us with was sort of a general that that that that didn't was unavailable so he didn't ask ok can i go get that these affidavits from my parents and from my sister is that it's an affirmative duty is it not on the part of the immigration judge that the immigration judge to give the applicant notice of what cooperation is required on what issue is i read ran away that is what that is what rand held and we would just argue that that in this case petitioner stated that he couldn't get these affidavits and that they were unavailable and and the board disagreed with whether or not these these affidavits were unavailable but i think that my time is up so we'll do it counsel yes i still have another question for you ok it's sort of the technical one i guess but  with regard to the agency decision i thought that the agency specifically reasoned that it was implausible that if there was anything in the record that says whether or not the hospital she went to was state on not covered it does abortions that the state wants sometimes but whether it's a state hospital and also whether do we have to address that because that was a rationale of the agency as opposed to some other ground well to answer your question no there is something that directly states that this is a state run hospital and as to your question about whether or not you must find i mean you do not because if any of these the reasons that the agency supplied is supported by only bottle you have any questions for me officials for his resistance ok thank you thank you and think think both sides for their arguments the case of you versus holder now submitted for decision and we will take a five minute recess