i just get four points this morning first substantial evidence the the i a e a decision is expressively based on two inconsistency findings suppose of inconsistent inconsistency findings made by the immigration judge they're not inconsistency when you look at the record the first concerns when mr howe was or what type of what time of day mr howe was interrogated in his statement that was submitted in support of his asylum application he indicated he focused on one particular interrogation that took place at night when he was burned with a cigarette he also says in that same statement in the same paragraph that during his detention multi week attention he was interrogated multiple times or numerous times he was it wasn't just the one time there any is there any suggestion that by thing that he was interrogated at night and that on occasion with he was a target and i was burned with a cigarette and then later on saying that he was a target multiple times that somehow he meant he was interrogated multiple times that night i've looked at that paragraph over and over and over and what he seems to be saying is he starts by saying talking about the one interrogation and when he's burned that he fall saying he was interrogated multiple times when he testified before the i j a and was asked about that i think it's at page seventy one seventy three of the transcript he said that in his statement he was focusing on the one interrogation so if you put that together it seems that he pretty clearly was just focusing on the one interrogation when he did the statement when he gets to the hearing before the i j a he explains that he was interrogated four times three times during the day one time at night if you go back to the statement there is nothing in that statement way or another but when he got when mr howe got to the hearing then he said three times he was interrogated during the day one time at night if you put that together there's nothing inconsistent it's the same it's the same situation that if you have someone in a civil lawsuit who was deposed and who was asked a series of questions but is not asked the key question or two so that there isn't a deposition transcript record that answers that question talking about credibility and we're talking about the i j's ability to judge credibility because he was physically there when that proceeding was happening i would have expected the i j a to in this in the area specific finding about when the interrogations took place to assert well when mr howe was cross examined or examined on direct that his he got rather he trembled or one of those indicia that you would that would suggest to a judge immigration judge that there was someone was not telling the truth but if you look in the transcript at the or in the finding about this issue says on credibility is that the answer that the answer was not plausible he just doesn't like the answer it's not anything that he perceived at the time so i think we're all in the same position the i j a was the amount of harassment we know that people have to put up with from the government i mean it's not our god it's not it's not our way of life but we can't obviously being arrested being followed even being beaten even being caused pain and suffering by one's government that does not amount to persecution what and each time he was beaten black and blue he was not no booking bones no hospitalizations he did end up going to the hospital corners testimony after he was released because as a result of that cigarette burn it  became badly infected and he was running a high fever and he had to go to the hospital for for medicine or treatment so he in fact he was physically damaged by the treatment and i would take it step back  he's in custody he's being beaten according to his testimony the reason that he is being beaten is because of his membership in this felon gone which whether you look at it as a political entity or a religious i i should use the word persecution i think that it may use a different word but there is a lengthy country report in the i g in the record that was before the i j a and i think that's another issue that if you go through the eye jay's findings if you go through g decision there's not a mention i don't believe there's a mention of a country report in this country report that's part of this record goes on in detail it's a very long report about the reprint any is there any case ninth circuit or going honors american miles for the united states evidence against mr how the were the worst evidence i would say equally both with respect to the time of day that the interrogations took place and also his testimony interrogated many times during the tension over nearly two months when he says i could not get enough to eat drink the day and i suffered from the plural at night and then he goes on to say during one interrogation at night i could not follow them because i was too sleepy and then sustained the cigarette burn which implies he had multiple interrogations at night and times and they usually began at eleven am and then when it was pointed out that this was inconsistent with his statements he said well one of those eleven am one of those morning interrogations went into the night and that's the one where he that he was stating i only had one evening time interrogation during his testimony and then when he was asked specifically why did you not mention that you were interrogated during the day in your statement which is very specific in every other regard he did not respond he was completely unresponsive on page one twenty three of the administrative record you'll see that all he said was put in my statements that i was interrogated at night i focused on the one time but he did not address the question why why did you not mention the date time he was unresponsive to that question point of him stating that he had to report to the police station his statement clearly says police station he said he had to report once a week in his statement now testimony he again testified that when asked at first that he had to report to the police station once a week he was released on february twenty eighth and he came to the united states and it was twenty fourth which is a period of approximately eight weeks when he was asked how many times he reported to the police station he said over ten times it was noted to him specifically that this was impossible given the dates that it could and could not have been more than eight times if it was once a week and then he changed his answer to say well i also had to report to a neighborhood committee this neighborhood committee was not in his statement when asked how many times he reported to the neighborhood committee and the police station he stated five to six times each which again if you reported once a week to the police station still that does not cover the eight week period s police station at first in his testimony it was only once it was pointed out that this wasn't in possibility that he could have done more than ten times that he changed it to take well i also had to go to this neighborhood committee so he could make it talking about being persecuted and you're talking about being fearful and fleeing for your life i think you would remember very clearly especially it's small enough number of times how many times you had to report to the authorit first yes that's exactly the point it wasn't necessarily the numeric discrepancy at first but when it was pointed out to him he didn't say oh i could be wrong on the number instead he brought in this whole new entity that was not mentioned in  there's no finding here that he even practiced falling gong in china speaking of fallen gone you heard counsel's comment with respect to a country report what's the relevance of that to the squares well here i would i would say that there was no need to review the indicate that practitioners of fallen gong that it is an illegal practice in china and that there have been incidents of people being detained and harmed in china because of their continue record i don't see that there's any inconsistency in his testimony at all now if the i j a of wrong about that why can't i find the i j a has is incredible in his own and consistencies and not give him any differences to a pretty dramatic that's a pretty dramatic conclusion again i think whether or not he was completely credible based on this record doesn't take away from the fact that the of found him not credible in every way i mean one thing to say that somebody has completely overstated the grounds for for asylum sure it's another thing to deny that there are a practitioner following on that all want to be a practitioner following gong not having suffered  any significant persecution the and in china and the chinese authorities perhaps not even being aware that you are a practitioner of fallen gong but i think the idea that you are to drink consistent in what you've said about certain incidents would be relevant we go to the heart of the that would not entitle you to asylum but it would necessarily lead to a conclusion that you are not a practitioner problem call that that is correct however i i would advance here that mr howe did not meet his burden in demonstrating that he has in fact point about the time of day and the re and the the reporting requirement to the police station one might doubt that he was reported as many times to the police station or that he had a requirement to report to the police station right one might doubt the number of his interrogations to be i j ever find at any on that i would advance because we cannot discern here what was in fact credible and what was not in fact credible based on this record we cannot  enforcement is happening in today's environment in china as opposed to when he first came here and again those are all issues to be reviewed by the agency in the first instance because this is a legal determination and one of the something that home because he would be arrested or worse the issue clearly was raised there was no finding one way or another related to that there was no independent finding of credibility on the cat claim both at the i j a level and at the that have involved members of this panel that have found that that in and of itself is sufficient to really to to send the matter back because as the court has pointed out what will happen in the future or may happen to the future to mr howe has to be dealt with by the immigration service and it has to be part of the decision it is not what mr howe might do when he goes back t issue is what the chinese government perceives him to be and there is no there is no finding that he was not practicing following gong in china there was no finding that the chinese government whether  ct or not does not perceive him to be a member of that outlawed group and it would seem to me that it would just flow logically that there had to be a fighting made about whether he had a well founded concern about returning to china for the asylum claim there also had to be an independent finding on the catholic thank you you thank