it during his first and second arrests fish narrative testified that he was a restaurant two occasions and that he was beaten approximately around fifty times during his first ar is the declaration is five pages long and a single space which is in my experience quite lengthy for an application declaration and therefore i would be i would i would be troubled if you didn't  something that they came from that concern the fact that he did in essentially write it it was transcribed for him so would be natural that he would say a few phrases that would come directly out of that which he only cites i believe two or three instances where that it happened as far as her allegation of had applied for it i believe two years prior and considering the fact that the immigration judge does not accept hold itself out to be an expert in the way driver's licenses are issued in fact i believe she says that she's not really sure how  things and how that matter is conducted in india i don't see how she can base an average credibility finding on his testimony regarding how he obtained his driver's license and the two affidavits she did not accept as far as the two individual of somebody who had them in the united states for at least a couple of years before the immigration hearing and which progressed sometimes a little at a leisurely pace all of this is in the slow as some others and and dealing with a country such as india which is not foreclosed or walled off from the united states is it really so much the case that that someone who's claiming allegations forwarded by the indian police alleging that he was involved with with militant activity both he and his family were involved with not an activity in the immigration judge found that his entire family and i will defer now the response counsel and follow up on that point and  it please the court my name is debbie mystere and i represent the attorney general this is an asylum case in which the immigration judge denied relief on the basis of the implausibility of the stated claim and an adverse credibility past persecution and a well founded fear of future persecution on account of the speaker religion and imputed political opinion because he says the police thought he might be affiliated would seek militants who were at the time agitating fo testimony that he had nothing to do whatsoever with the militants or see terrorists operating in the punjab at the time he submitted a nine hundred ninety eight indian driver's license to prove his identity the picture on the driver's license shows a clean shaven man not wearing a turban he clearly was not an observant sikh when he was in india his testimony that the police mistakenly thought he was associated with terrorists because they allegedly came to his family's mill and obtained supplies from his brother over a period of years and because a bomb went off at his family's mail and then a month later a bomb killed the punjabi our minister be not saying frankly defies logic it defies logic that the police would think that the plaintiff in a spammer who had suffered in fact based on the claims alleged by the petitioner this is not a typical seek asylum case based on religion or politics or the politics of cows ma'am but rather a criminal investigation of a bombing where the police had a legitimate reason for investigating him and having an interest in him even if there were no adverse credibility finding in this case and there were no major inconsistencies between his testimony and its documentation even if there were no questions about his identity he would have failed to show that there is he was persecuted on account of a protected ground findings this case is the exact opposite of care of us here they are the immigration act judge articulated several reasons for his adverse credibility grinding i'm going to just listen real quickly for the court first as judge lane observed he made the immigration judge made a demeanor finding she found based on her observation of the alien over several days of testimony secondly there are major inconsistency between petitioner's written declaration and his testimony his written declaration says i was held at transferred to then to pill r and then to the immigration judge asked him to explain the inconsistency and he couldn't provide a credible reason for them secondly his declaration says that he was he suffered a terrible form of torture on his first arrest i e the stretching between two poles he testified before the immigration judge however that that  the father of the planet of the petitioner in this case it was prepared by the exacting notary who prepared his allegedly real father's affidavit and signed on the exact same day fourth reason the immigration judge explains for her had adverse credibility decision is the driver's license now opposing counsel made much of the fact that she has this driver's license and it doesn't strain credibility have been i guess signed three days before he was released from custody because it was pending pro while again there's a couple of interesting insights and in this case when you look at the driver's license and if you look at the driver's license is good for five years presumably these driver's license are used to it every five years if they expire after five years opposing counsel said well the immigration judge herself noted she doesn't know the  laws regarding driver's licenses in india and that's certainly understandable but if you look at the driver's license on the face of it itself it has different classifications for the types of operators now if as he's testified he was writing a scooter back and forth between work and home for eleven years before this driver's license was issued it would make sense he had previous driver's licenses he testified that he didn't hometown in india and point out now he testified that this wife and this brother were they didn't know where their whereabouts were because they were so scared of the police they just disappeared and they weren't sure where they were persecution in this case i e his family in india appears to be safe and sound in his hometown and on and this court has held repeatedly that ongoing family safety militates against a finding of a well founded fear persecuted with them the fact that they're all still living there and they're fine would certainly support the immigration judges conclusion that his claim is implausible on the basis of the specific cogent reasons that go to the heart of petitioners claim for asylum i eat his identity as a member of a family that has allegedly been mistakenly tied to tea terrorists by the police and the alleged harm suffered by him the major inconsistencies regarding his testimony about the leisure time suffered by him his initial offering of an apparently fraudulent document by a second father and the overall i investigation into this case i don't think that's possible considering the fact that he wasn't formally arrested or charged with a crime they were brought before a court of law was detained for six months on end on two occasions and severely beaten these are all this is all events that bombing and their persecution of him and his family is not possible when you go on the rest in in the in the transcript and