and all relevant factors that require review consideration clued in corroborative human rights documentation in addition to the judicial notice the facts of the undisputed facts now in this case were concerned that the petitioner was never given the opportunity to reply to matters of concern to the immigration court or if he did his explanations were ignored and not commented would place by speculative findings without any judicial notice to just common sense facts for instance want you notice that the government has essentially walked away from some of what's in its brave which was relying on credibility factors that the government can find right right so why don't we go through what they did last what they thought were their remaining credibility factors that darby is the sikh who is baptized the fact that he's not baptize is not an indication that he's not a sikh it means that he's not an advanced sikh that he doesn't wear the turban he doesn't wear the beard he doesn't carry the sward and he's not eligible to become a ground be a present at the same time he is representing these actively involved in a pro sikh organization before he comes to the united states is that it may not be  a baptized seek to be a sikh you have to be a baptize he could be a priest but he can have a political conviction and he did for a lot of people the united states who are you terry and if and if but that is only bearable here because you're circuit in carvey holder has said when the testimony is carvey hold is five sixty one federal thirty nine fifty seven had nine sixty two nine sixty three they have said that where the person's testimony is entirely credible you can't rely on their was made it was made in rural point job it was made by a marginalized political faction with through the means that they had at the time they used security paper it was stamped and they had the photo put on to that paper in fact the u s cia the u s ins the legacy ins used to make work cards the exact same way and security part of the paper you gave in the photo they covered with plastic they'd seal it until nine hundred ninety six they started using more secure methods but this is the world and this is very strange that the judge just forgot what our country used to do before nine eleven but in addition to that we have the issue of the was that he at the hearing originally was saying give me anything exactly don't say he didn't keep any records they didn't give him anything because they don't keep them they don't keep them because i don't know that you're saying it's usually noticeable that there are no let me  say yes it's just common sense can i explain how wait a minute how is the fact that they produced this document now inconsistent with them having records how do we know that and have records what what why what does it matter whether they have i'm trying to explain your honor ok it's one hundred degrees it's one hundred percent humidity it's rural point job these are poor farmers they pay cash it's not a well funded clinic what's the point of keeping records on soft paper when a year later it's just going to be an ink blot and that can be found simply by looking on the internet looking at the climatic conditions like to understand something yes ma'am i think you're trying to prove more than you have to prove a nest one because all he said originally was he didn't give me they don't give you a document  he didn't say they don't keep any tuchman's and there's no reason why this could have been written off a document that they did have so they give it after the fact in broken english and completely in comprehensible affidavits made after the fact and this was to witness credibility but is not indispensable the documents say what medicine seeking from it seems extremely unlikely that he couldn't remember this without having any records but i don't understand why you're conceding that he didn't have any records the doctor i mean that the doctor could have had the records and then when they asked him for the documentation he went look at the records i mean why are you insisting that the have any records well  point is the judge deciding what this document was was a matter of the judge's speculation as to what should have been available what should have been invaluable and in fact the judges being speculation was the immigration judges given and what this document did is it failed to prove anything but it didn't go to his credibility as the last one which is the father's wish declaration that again doesn't it doesn't prove anything it does it goes to the  documentation the judge is speculating that certifications are produced by non attorney service provider is next to a court the these at this station say they are not judicial documents and so they have a bilingual service provider providing the affidavit in english you're right it doesn't attest that the document was read back in punjabi and so it's not terribly  doesn't mean that it discredits the inherently detailed and consistent testimony of the respondent and i'd like to add one more thing they talked about both detentions and arrest but the court itself in the board left out that he was stopped along the side of the road and beaten by by mobs that he thought were a hindu and receive that it was improper and we tried to correct it as soon as we found so interesting is the changing stories about when he came into the country as well as the name are not really correct everything that we cited in our we're only left with those just and you know that's that's what's before the court so your honors this court should deny the petition for review because the immigration judge as affirmed by the board gave specific and cogent reasons given the the circumstances to find saying a credible and mr singh has not demonstrated that the record compels a contrary finding i'd like to start with the demeter findings and to begin with the immigration judge specifically noted stiffness and crossed  ways they're also culturally bound as well and in this instance what they said specifically that his stiffness crossed arms and wrote testimony were and consistent with someone who suffered the horrific abuse described as generation i don't know what that means we supposed to because the trial judge is the one of valuating the applicant who's there in the courtroom looking at visual cues that are not apparent from the record this court has held that such determinations will be based on nonverbal cues and few if any of these ephemeral ind of credibility can be beat on paper record of the proceedings and it would be extraordinary for review in court to substitute it secondhand impression for the petitioners demeanor i want to reiterate when when congress enacted the real i d act demeanor was the first thing that they put on the list congress said credibly determinations that the immigration alone is in the best position to observe the tone and demeanor to explore and consistencies and this really goes to who is in the best position to look at th a trial judge and with regards to petitioners argument about the p t s d well that is a very valid concern that is something that the alien can address the petitioner in this particular case admitted no evidence that he's been diagnosed with p t s d if that is the case in any other you know in a future case your honor you know the medical evaluation can be submitted with that if that happens after the testimony they can file a motion to reopen with the immigration judge if they are diagnosed with it if it goes to the demeanor finding but what we have here is this court requires that it not plait the immigration judge i'm sorry boilerplate so in other words that it can't just say oh demeanor and move on that they have to give specific reasons that this court can look at and they did so in this case again the stiffness the crossed arms the row of mechanical testimony the inconsistency with someone who like in the lens who suffered these horrific acts all of that and that didn't add up to the immigration judge who was there observing it again this because they cared about the fate of the jewish people but they weren't religious they were specifically not religious so what does this prove if i address that in turn even if the demeanor finding stands which it should because petitioner has not demonstrated that anything c contrary finding even impre real idea log this would would be sufficient to sustain the adverse credibility determination but particularly realize it doesn't or should the fact that there judge was relying on other things i understand that the a radically one is good enough but when the one is demeanor which is really not testable and then there are other things that are said that just told stand up like the religion thing which to me just doesn't stand up and similarly the notion that  silly if i can address them in turn so with regards to what you just said about the active membership portion the board did not affirm that portion of the decision again it only used the fact that it was crudely pasted on to  document and again the party membership card if we put this into context i'm sort of looking in another way the the demeanor evidence is just the right because the board has no more ability to review within which so if the i was saying other things that just don't make a lot of sense and may suggest some bias or something then doesn't that undermine our and my mind and undermines the demeanor conclusion even if this if your honor felt that certain aspects of the immigration judges were supported by substantial evidence that doesn't mean that all of them they gave there were specially or three specific documents that they question between the party membership id which looked crudely pasted on in which he had an opportunity to corroboree and bring was on notice of that as well as the father's affidavit which was you know a non english observing the demeanor of it coupled with now we have at the initial hearing he submitted none of these documents the i j a said you know what here are some corroborating issues the attorney admitted and said hey i'd like a next you know a continuance get three months to submit these documents he comes back in the documents have problems they have issues with reliability and the immigration judge gave specific reasons for why those documents had reliability issues the medical documentation for example that's one of the things that was belat about when i was here four years ago i wanted what was my problem what he could do that no problem i think i think the issue here was that you know first you have these documents that give the specific drug down to the number of pills down to the milligrams i went to my doctor i mean we were just told they don't keep records but if they don't keep records and i went to my doctor's joe and i asked for i mean as i do sometimes i need a letter saying you know what happened four years ago they can do it no problem right now but loading the specific cause of the medication and everything else and what day and what time and everything else so but the issue there would be that there would you would likely be able to either submit the original records because they kept them and that's how they derived them here there's no evidence of how they got these documents that's what's really troublesome right it's not just that these these letters came for years later were created contemporaneously that just went to the persuasiveness of it documents and also this inconsistency about whether he was actually at the doctor in person as the doctor says i saw bruises and he says he was never at the doctor that's correct but again that's not specifically listed in the decision but that is there are questionable other components to the medical documentation that that well because we were limited to just what the documents and the reasons that the immigration judge said i don't believe the immigration judge particularly picked up on the difference of the language  they did then not his book about that is certainly another ground for them to be unreliable but it be agents who didn't specifically say that incorporated into its decision i would like to just briefly talk about the appearance because i know that's a concern  honor the main issue here is that he's pretty you know presenting a persona of somebody who is extremely active in politics and not just politics because the akali dolman party is intrinsically in situation where the alien was a member of the party and they argued that the i j a improperly placed the adverse credibility decision on his nonobservance of orthodoxy practices and the court of appeals upheld the adverse credibility determination on the ground in part based on the failure represented that he participated in orthodoxy he said i do it and he doesn't present that way that's one thing but he was i mean it was i regret a lot of these transcripts now this was you know pretty responsive and pretty explanatory and he was pretty explanatory about this he didn't say you know i am really serious or have you said i'm not again this is really just to answer your question i  i'm getting close to out of time but you know well he did say look there are different levels of sikhs and i fall on kind of the other and the idea is that we regard this of where you fall on the orthodox that if you are going to be a zealous advocate you are going to rallies you are putting you know black posters and black flags around and passing them around you were risking your life and personal peril to promote this independent sikh state that you would then have at least some some realm of you know that you know there were people killed in the south supporting black voting rights who weren't black and didn't have any voting rights problems it's just a funny business if they're if he's being upfront about what his connection was he representing himself as something that he very active into this again i would just reiterate that you know at the end of the day this court even if it could draw inconsistent conclusions that is not the standard of review you can have inconsistent conclusions and still have the evidence be supported by join this movement succession from india the punjab police will be very displeased with you in addition to that i've already raised the issue of the after the fact dr his letter is made in really poor english where it was really not clear if the doctor was testifying as to the mother's testimony or his own and i would describe that to needing to study for and pass the toefl examination and finally the respondent didn't claim to be a