for two more days this week and that number of cases for argument here if you haven't been to the ninth circuit before welcome and there is a clock up there to keep track of your time you can save time free by the we'll try to help you out but you should keep track of the time for yourself gold yes i am good morning good morning thank you and now the first case for argument this morning i so you have the right client here we'd like to startle you in the morning made that adverse credibility finding against miscalls that was based on a hard project impermissible reasons including an aversion to mis cost as physical appearance and pretty much everybody who studied the bible knows there's a new persona who comes in the new testament that's kind of important i mean it seemed like she couldn't really respond to anything with respect to biblical references and yet she was proselytizing for thirteen and the new testament and i think without further guidance here is fine too as i don't know what to say that i don't i so i think the fact that was an open ended question and i don't think that's an appropriate response for to say i don't know the as i don't know the answer to that are i don't know where you where you're getting at and i was asked was a little confused i know there was some discussion about the gospels and then and maybe i read in one of the greats well she didn't really know what they were but then i read some testimony where i thought she actually named the like matthew mark with jerry you know in the initial gospels and then in the new testament is that correct yes she did was able to name she made a mistake with respect to one of the books and that she had and then and then there's another reference that i can't figure out is it whether it's a translation problem or a transcription problem which may be d don't very little of the bible there it was pretty much like there was an understanding that one of them is based on the romanian translation of the word as opposed to the english translation of the word lesser degree you know someone could come in and just take a religion and say well i have this religious situation and then of course i was prosecuted persecuted or mistreated on the other  hand religions coming off shapes and sizes and we have to be careful that the immigration judge is not prejudging from an american perspective as to what a religion might look like in another country for example if this particular group supposedly had only eighty people in that group but seventh out only seven thousand in the country so how where can you give us some guidance in terms of how you think the benchmark are to be so we'll know when does they step over the line in terms of inserting himself or herself into what is a religion versus also being able to fairly make a credibility finding you know your i think your question i a legend persecution based on you know the exact basis of belief of this religion but merely because of the fact that her religion is a minority religion in romania and that you ask you about that because there's a record from a record there was thirteen months between at least that she was a member of the religion and i think was holding meetings on a weekly basis she got  interrupted or she got abused by the populace with the police looking on and not doing anything then we had the two incidents terrible to be sure especially the second one involving the her allegation that she was raped but i guess my question is this really a single crime by a couple of rogue police does not qualify it necessarily for asylum i'm not sure i see any sort of systematic state persecution of this religion other than there were comments that they were here to because it wasn't a registered religion but as i recall it was the same police who showed up the second week and so it was a limited sort of situation in terms of is that really question it was severe that she's alleged no question with it but the question is this just an isolated incident with you know two week period with the same officers who are rogue and there's no indication that whether the higher ups knew about it condoned it or couldn't control them so what you had was a two week period after she'd been doing her work and having her meetings for thirteen months and it could have been the i mean these are just too isolated and since the police are mad they had to come back a second time i mean and wasn't the i morning they please the court time to pray for the united states and like to begin by addressing the question the judge mckeown raised because i do think it really goes to the heart of this case and that is how does an i test the allegations in a case where petition comes forth claiming that she belonged to a particular religion and the i g is not familiar with that religion and as in this case the petitioner failed to provide any evidence that the religion exists particularly in the way and on the scale to which she testified i think in this case the i g did something perfectly permissible which is to take the petitioners description of her faith on its own terms and then ask questions design whether or not she was a member of this group whether she had these beliefs and where as a group acted as it did for example with the petition of correct the i j kind of went overboard making assumptions on religion and how people would act and said she was of like the future of the second coming doesn't somehow comport with you know these tenants of the faith so that's quoting from that you know from the transcript it doesn't reflect she was not familiar she to her credit the i j a during a break in the proceedings actually she jerked court to go do her own internet research to try to learn more about it and so i think that her remarks contrasting the petitioner's demeanor with the beliefs that the petitioner professed i think was simply a way of remarking on here's this new thing that i've been told about here these beliefs it's interesting that she holds these beliefs given her demeanor but again i think the critical point for what do you think is the strongest basis for the average credit line i think the petition is failure to answer fundamental questions about her practice her beliefs her religion on if fundamental question and again the petitioner testified that at heart it is a christian doctrine that she believes and she did not know the difference between the old in the new testament which i think is this was kind of you know it's a difficult proceeding and she was testifying she knew who the head of the church was which wrestles him or russell she was able to talk about talking about armageddon as the beginning of the malema sed concern and faith in everything was moving towards armageddon where we were going to go the christian faith she knew  there was no you know publications but when you say she didn't know anything about the religion as pointed out by the petitioner there were a number of questions that she responded to that were off the cuff from the i j a where she responded consistent with  test that this court employs the test this court employs is does the record compel the conclusion that she was credible and that she had these beliefs that she belonged to this organization and i think that that the answer to that question has to be the sense that this was someone who proselytized the only document she item she carried around with her there's no church literature there was a bible this is her own testimony she walked around with a bible for thirteen months knocking on doors saying we want you to believe this she succeeded in converting the fundamental document what's the difference between the old and new testament i don't know and i think that that in and of itself provides a substantial evidence predicate for this court to affirm the adverse credibility ruling all it takes is one  we're asking these questions because we are trying to get to the heart of matter too so we appreciate your good or we get candid responses there was some shift of course not petitioners position that you would i you remind i think that controls in this case i don't think the record compels a country result thank you thank you her interest in the bible and what she or her favorite parts of the bible the fact that someone would be asked a kind of a question is what is the difference between the old testament in the new testament and then she says i don't know what to say to that without a follow up question i don't think it is enough for an adversary said suggested it was enough when he didn't touch on the declarations that came in which seemed inconsistent with your position about the amount of  persecution of the religion as a whole i think there were locally about eight or ten whatever number of it here and he said everybody has is it or is the declaration seemed not to mention that you would think that would have come out i think under that i think don't even read it as an omission they were all slapped and then they were they were taken away and she remained at least on the second yes yes and yet none of them leave discussed anything that happened to them they did make the general comment the people were again i think i would i would not read that as an inconsistency i think that's an omission i because it could be read i think it's very strange to read it that i'm saying i firmly believe that i was not beaten i think we have