questioned as to whether or not he was a member of the mon party in his credible fear interview and then he responded no but i am a supporter and i been doing activities that workers have been doing  statement that he was a member there was documentary evidence is for the statement that men party let a written application for asylum in the case that he was a member yes and he always affirmed that he was a member i would say that the asylum officers notes in a credible fear interview are unreliable in this court has made similar findings in regards to bond hearings and airport interviews it's not a verbatim transcript of what he was saying it was notes made for a base credible fear  who introduced that distinction it wasn't just a tool and it wasn't even part of the i don't know what the question was but he's the one who kind of set up this dichotomy between strong supporters which he was and members which he said he was not so it's not like he could have been confused because he himself laid out the the you know the two categories right well i think there was clear confusion because even later on in the credible fear interview when he was asked during the asylum bar questions whether or not he's been a member of an i would say that if you were in your brief that his that that the explanations were different because there's not a significant difference in the punjab the language between the words member and supporter  was not offered by saying it's offered by you and there was a singing interpreter at the hearing who could have been asked whether the words were a similar is synonymous and nobody said i mean he asked believe it should have been asked john arca is clearly at the moment we don't know if the difference between the words it was not asked at the hearing th e what about the others the others including his testimony about the date of his first attack on the i j fell to mr singh for testifying on direct that he was first attacked on june tenth two thousand and eleven man who was attacked yeah and then the question was when was the first time he did this to you so not no qualifiers in terms of the severity of the attack just one was the first time and he gave diametrically inconsistent answers two thousand and ten versus preceding questions were but it was along the lines of whatever abuse he was claiming he had suffered at the hands of the uncle i think the explanation you offer here is that well he was confused that he thought like one was the first severe beating or something and that just wasn't the question  but i would say that i j fail to consider is the explanation though even that he placed particular significance on the two thousand and eleven two hundred thirteen attack so when he was testifying he was testifying to the times he was and twenty and so i sort of regarded that as significant on the issue of whether he was actually a member of the party i mean it seems to me to be tied with the first statement saying if he was not a member at the time are you saying in his written application and his credible fear interview he said the first attack was shortly after he joined the man party in two thousand and ten which suggests that he was a member correct which is contrary to what he what he had previously said well i mean other than that one statement in the credible fear interview has never wavered from the fact that he was in fact a member of the party i j failed to consider anything other than that one statement he didn't consider his written application about his membership in considers father's letter you don't consider a letter from them on party he didn't consider africans testimony he didn't even consider another statement later on in the same credible fear interview that seemingly saying that i am in fact a member of the mon party so i think that is where the i j a fault of his decision about the membership issue and then also another issue was the amount of times he was attacked by the uncle doesn't determine as an adverse credibility factor  it's simply untrue in his i five eighty nine mr singh stated that he was attacked that his uncle attacked me several times including that including badly injuring me in two thousand and eleven in two thousand and thirteen responded and questions that he was attacked many times lots of times and he finally clarified that he had been attacked by them at least ten to fifteen times he gave a reasonable and plausible explanation one question as to why his father's affidavit only describe seeing suffering two attacks and i j had to provide a specific and cogent reason for jack to the explanation and failed to do so while i didn't have to give a point by point reasoning on this issue i that's pretty definitive i'm a supporter not a member and then he said how supporters and members differ there is evidence in the record of that he is a member and was a member in tw creates an inconsistency between his testimony and his documentation which is the basis for an adverse credibility terminations i don't know why he do this but he brought it up unequivocally and he brought it up on his own  all i can tell i'm feeling that but here is much narrower is did he tell the truth is there does this record compel the conclusion that he testified truthfully is a number of holes in this gentleman's  testimony which i've addressed others are how many times were you attacked he left the immigration judge confused about that because he said flat out i'm confused i need to clarify things you keep testifying in two big attacks so how many times were you assaulted his response quote twice i've been i was beaten up by them which were big attacks i'm not talking about big or small i'm talking about all attacks his people beat me up quite a many times him who are your worst attacks or tell me about your worst attacks tell me about your attacks the question was was unequivocal how many times were you attacked period i don't think there's no ambiguity there  that's a justification after the fact when when he expands the answer from two to fifteen or many his explanation is oh i thought you asked me how only about the series  severe attacks and that's not simply not what was asked your honor that's that's your take on it respectfully that's the i think these are all valid  interview he said my father was also beaten in his declaration he didn't mention an attack on the father and his father statement to him he didn't mention being attacked and then and on cross examination understand why that might not be quite as probative of credibility and also it's something that has and to a third party not him the courts thought there was something about his lawyer and i just cannot figure out what happened there that makes two of us i don't know what his  objection was your honor he disputed the statement at the border interview that i believe that when mr singh said that his father was also beaten his counsel took issue with that and said he didn't say that and that's as far as i would also point out that between the the border and if you had the credible fear interview he enhanced his claim before the border patrol at the first interview which was a day after he was apprehended he was asked about his claim he said my uncle apple beat me i have no other fears in india two weeks later credible fear interview same thing but then he says my uncle wants me to quit the man party and now he has a brand new political element there if there are other two other i don't want to go down the whole laundry list but the last one i'll mention is whether the police have a ever threaten to jail him when he required but i think it gives you the tenor and i just don't see how this this record would give any reviewer confidence that compel the conclusion that he testified truthfully in his claim before the court party in november of two thousand and ten and then the statement is just after i joined the party i was confronted and attacked by my uncle so doesn't that suggest that in a sworn declaration not just these unreliable asylum officer interview notes that he  attack was in twenty two regarding the attack yes i thought my comments were about when he was saying the only time he made a statement saying that he was not a member of the party but regarding the i thought we were talking about the day of the first attack am i getting that confused me i thought it was twenty twenty said the only time you've ever said it was in two thousand and ten was in this unreliable asylum officer interview and i'm looking at your sworn declaration it seems to say that that the first