board said that the mr chen failed to corroborate he didn't provide sufficient preparation but they make us a striking claim and this is what i believe the clearly erroneous portion of the decision is that it claims that the evidence of the church attendance could have been reasonably obtained elop this is it's curious that they said that they reviewed the finest back because there are no facts nothing in the record that could assist the board to form the conclusion that's that's about the reasonableness of obtaining the evidence church he did it came up a nd time and cross again only one question in which the government attorney asked him whether or not he has the the church record and then his answer was simply no different grounds it seems to be in the idea in a b a's decision one is the one you're discussing now but what about the other ground it's in the other ground based basis doesn't say that there's missing cooperative i look at all the evidence and not putting aside credibility your evidence doesn't line up and so it's not persuasive it's going to be a do that or not well they can do it but it would be based on substantial evidence  they didn't do that so it should be clear to me it would be based on substantial evidence in this case or do you mean they could never do that in any case i guess i don't understand which one you mean i think that they should not do that in those cases that  provides testimony but then they they give voluntarily because it happens i think a lot they voluntarily provide various documents to cope or they don't necessarily wait until the i j a ask them to cooperate right don't they'll provide like like mr chen did in this case when they do that if those documents that they provide don't line up with the testimony or with the other documents if there is inconsistency what is what is that the i a e a supposed to do with that i know they can do or adverse credibility you can fill it but if they don't go law saying is the only thing that the b i a or the i j can do it with inconsistent evidence is have an adverse credibility finding or can that same inconsistent evidence be the basis for saying you just haven't met your burden because it's not persuasive because it's not the evidence was insufficient to charge him for illegal gathering right but me submit that this language understood the purpose of release does not do much research and claim and to support this argument i call your attention to the two thousand and nine international religious religious freedom court that's a page two hundred and eighty seven and i'm going to read these two senses because it's not worthy on this issue it says a growing number of unregistered religious groups have chosen to affiliate with a registered venue of the ts pm that's a government sanctioned protestant religious organization of china these groups are not able to meet legally with the supervision of the registered venues leaders so now if we revisit the so called troubling language of the certificate of released the fact that the authorities had insufficient evidence becomes less problematic so we're saying it's not in any instance that see it's entirely possible that mr chen's  was in regulatory compliance with the local authorities and therefore d there was no evidence to to further warrant his attention evidence can only go to credibility or frankincense and evidence can also you know to the to the petitioners credibility as a whole and therefore basically say you're the petitioner is not testifying honestly right that would be an adverse thread about credibility fine or can you say if you have been consistent evidence to you that it's not that evidence is not persuasive and tim to me in aden case from this court says that this that we are to look at whether they've met their burden by looking at their credible testimony along with the other evidence but if the other evidence is not consistent then it seems to me that that would that would that would actually hurt them and meeting their  seems reasonable that it will go to credibility and persuasiveness for just this quarter saying all cases or for this yeah not this i understand your position i think from your briefing is that that there is not an inconsistency here i get that so i'm not asking you to concede that there's any inconsistency ok i don't i don't think you think so but i'm just what i'm what i'm wondering about the law right the little issue right and we have to for the leadership we have to look at the justice first it's worth pointing out that the petitioner in this case actually had ample evidence that the immigration judge wanted additional documentary to be ample notice that the immigration judge wanted additional documentary evidence at a september th two thousand and ten hearing this is at ages one hundred to one hundred but of the record where they specifically talked about the detention notice the immigration judge encouraged the prior counsel to get a continuance saying i don't think that what you're giving me right now is going to be sufficient to meet your burden and they didn't submit any evidence after that and then there was a four year gap until there was a merits hearing so petitioner in this case had ample notice and four years to go and get additional evidence and the reason this stuff to get attention is so crucial on this case is it's the only document regarding his experiences in china he testified that he wasn't severely injured or seriously injured following the detention so there's no medical testified he had lost touch with all of the other congregants in china so he had no letters from them and so really all he has is this certificate and so that's what why it's so crucial regarding to counsel skeery that it could be trying to figure out if it wasn't yet fine or a private petition or never said that he said no i was trying was made to pay bail and that's why it's so important this case because while it wasn't an adverse credibility determination giv assume credibility here what express lee said it was not going to or from the immigration judges at risk credibility findings so yes it would it would seem that they were presuming his testimony to be credible the issue was and then they proceeded as if it was a credibility issue well the terms used were in an artful your honor they should they should not have used focus on that contradictory nature of the evidence but the fact remains it's of i mean he has a has a very there's a claim about one incident where he was detained but again he has no evidence whatsoever regarding his experiences in china and just the point now that he's claiming that you know they were this that this certificate proves that he was detained and that he had to pay bail and that you had to report repeatedly but a month later and this is on the record his passport was issued by the government and he was a well to reach china to pursue their studies in this country so again what would what should the board be doing with evidence of this nature it's just simply not persuasive  war i believe it was that page ones thirty of the record where they just briefly asked them what you know did you practice college at bowling green university he said i want to say i once or church in kentucky but then asked any follow up questions but again even if the board's decision doesn't expressly mention ren the procedural steps were followed here he was told that september two thousand and ten hearing that the evidence was insufficient and he should get more he had four years and he still didn't concerns with that evidence and so what the poor little i don't when i read the be a basis is near i don't i don't see the word missing i don't see the word i don't remember even seen the word insufficient it seemed to me like th the basis for decision was and i'll read it here some of his co operative evidence conflicts with his testimony of the choir of evidence i seems to me isn't there a difference between missing evidence and saying you need it you're supposed to by some part of evidence and you didn't ursa saying you provided us with some evidence that could be co operative but it just wasn't it was actually inconsistent  personal a is that is that is that right is that true the board should have been or should have taken more care to describe the issue it had with the evidence in this case but it is accurate were still going to the house because he wasn't reporting it and so the question i think the question that the follow up question so i think your answer is that yes you can say they cooperate about you know their ground of their decision is that their quad of evidence conflicts with his testimony and that is different than saying you're missing cooperate evidence that's the other ground the other grounds that you're missing cooperate evidence and you've already agreed that that that would need to be sent back but but on this this other ground it says that the quality of evidence simply conflicts you know i think we need to review that for substantial evidence and i think the challenge that seems like that this court is having is if you have conflicting evidence is that always a credibility issue what is the i guess maybe you could tell us what is a difference between a credibility issue where you would you can use conflicting evidence to have an adverse credibility finding i mean we see that all the time and i guess do that all the time but can you also use conflicting evidence to just simply say it doesn't cooperate you don't meet your burden of proof are those two different things or are they the or the same thing will crop aeration out of whether it's sufficient and persuasive and again that is what the crux of the board's decision and what they were trying to drive that is that because we don't know what to believe because you've got testimony saying one thing but this one document and the only document regarding your legit treatment in china says something else and because they don't know what to believe you have you haven't persuaded them and therefore he hasn't met his burden and as to that document i think what we've heard is this i think we heard speculation today that that could they could you know document could be lying because they got a bribe but i mean we review for substantial evidence right so if there's possible that no reasonable fact finder could have ruled as you see it in this case which he has not done but is looks like it's a shakedown but so so so counsel so to my earlier question and i ask you opposing counsel i mean you're providing us i mean it's black letter law i think immigration that councils argument can't can't  substitute for evidence right and so you're saying well in my experience as an experienced immigration lawyer i've seen this and they don't really know what they're talking about except her but none of that can substitute for the evidence it's in the record we can't take your word and treat it as evidence so i guess the question is is if you know you're saying that this could be they could be aligned with this that this could have been a bribe or something like that and they didn't know what bill meant but even assuming that that's one possible that's problem substantial and in this case the board has to do better and i j s i j credit at risk credibility determination needs to be specific and cogent and that's not that's not what's happening in this case it should be noted that the response of the petitioners asylum statement was never entered into the record and that was part of the basis of the ajay's finding is that she found it consistencies with the statement and adverse credibly say determination the v a didn't rely on the adverse credibility termes the great idea seems to me that the average credibility determination is is like a broad saying you know i've looked at everything and you just