having taken seven months to write has his decision immigration judge does not discuss any claim of abortion at all and any point in fact he apparently didn't understand that this is what the case is all about because his final conclusion is only that mrs chan did not have any fear of future persecution while he ignores that if she had in fact suffered an involuntary abortion that raises a presumption that she will suffer first future persecution and he had to deal with that issue and he was just totally silent regarding the abortions at one point during the testimony in fact he participated in asking her questions about how she had her second abortion and he is the one who suggested that she have the shot that induced the abortion and caused her to deliver a stillborn child some twelve hours later he was part of that discussion and yet whenever you come to the end of the case it's like none of that ever happened find that he was not specific over and over and over again for example he says that she had a problem with general demeanor he doesn't discuss anything whatsoever about her demeanor other than the fire the fact that she had some inconsisten find is that she never she never discussed october and testing it was always the judge the testimony started with me asking her when she first started she was pregnant she said she discovered she was pregnant in october the judge wanted to saying the judge the judge started saying that she stopped taking the pill in october then he said so you were seven months pregnant in february and she tried to correct him and he shall bring her down in the courtroom and said excuse me ma'am i'm talking here i'm trying to get some information i'm trying to get some things straight i do not want you talking now and she's not going to talk and she's trying to correct him who's he going to get his information from himself and that's what happened because he first started saying the judge said when she starts taking the pill in september then the judge said it twice more in that same statement so you stop taking the pill october and then later he says the record  man in february so if you were about seven months pregnant she says no i wasn't there months pregnant she says i'm confused because in october you stop taking the pill she's tried answering him he shouted her down and said october's do not interrupt me i'm trying to get some information straight here don't talk and then he said again october is when you stop taking the pill three and she said no october when i was  pregnant and she says i went to the doctor and they told me that i was three months pregnant every time october and testing as mentioned in this transcript is mentioned by the judge and when she tried to correct him he would not listen finally toward the end he said i'm confused counsel why don't you go through the questions again so i went through the questions again this time he came in t he didn't say there were two of their testimonies here he understood what we have here is in several places bad questioning being going on but we also have the judge for unknown reason test at one point she said she'd had the pregnancy test done in february trial attorney object and so that wasn't the testimony i said it was the judge said i'll play back the record i said please do that and he did and if he had he would have heard what the testimony was that point but he chose not to do that instead he started talking again instead if you understood that  should stop taking the pill in months and august or september he again said you stop thinking that you were pregnant on october so she took stuff if the judge himself was saying even at that point the testimony that she stopped taking the pill in august or september how could she ha noted in in the decision there were several instances that gave the immigration judge legitimate concern about her credibility there laid out very clearly on the record some of the discussion that was earlier in the arguments what was said was th was not corrected which of the record have been read back i think sort of obscures the issue it was mrs chance obligation to bring forth a credible clear claim for relief if the testimony wasn't clear then she should have corrected it she had she had i'm sorry i was referring to you know different things when when mr whalen was offered the opportunity to redirect if my recollection serves me he didn't ask direct questions that's that's the obligation to bring forward a credible clear claim and when that's not done it's it's essentially too late now to say well things weren't clear at the at the lower court better question should have been asked all those opportunities were there and if mrs chance didn't take advantage of them it's a day late and dollar short now to say well we should asked different questions below particularly when the evidence supports the immigration judges conclusion that her credibility was was in doubt and it was also there were questions raised about her demeanor she she consistently had trouble getting that straight clear answer anonymous for a response the answer there were several times on the record were the immigration judge says i'll just make another that was a non responsive answer and as and as the immigration judge said she had trouble answering questions that weren't you expect your honor i don't i'm going to answer your question but i don't think you have to judge that but we go yes we do have some cases that say that you can't use testimonial vagueness and consistencies to reject documentary evidence that that in fact it's mission are you saying that just just so i understand your answer to my question before you get on to the argument that are you saying you agree that the immigration judge didn't make any adverse credibility findings on the documents right that's testimony she can do it through documents she can do it through bringing in other witnesses which have acted narky do in this case the testimony was so there were so many problems with the credibility faced on the testimony but also connected to the document specifically her her declaration that that essentially overwhelms the rest of her claim and your honor certainly correct the record does not reflect any specific finding us to the documents it's the government's position that documents but that the interview with that claim is sufficient to sustain a finding i would want to go back and look at all those documents again i mean it was certainly the questions were about her credibility based on her different case for a different day here are the current one having and are the cases that you have to consider them independently and we don't have i mean they look pretty strong on their face and what seems to  occur here and what you're suggesting is that her lack of credibility testifying that justified the rejection of the documents in our case law so you can't do that so to me it seems to me  i think it's it's one part of the determination if the documents go and that we can ask a hypothetical question hypothetically if the documents came in and were so doubtful i doubt so questionable on their judge didn't address them but the credibility of the testimony was also was as doubtful this thing this court could should be able to come to the conclusion that the credibility was so bad with regard to testimony that it overwhelmed all the rest of the of the evidence and not just evidence but all of her efforts to meet her burden to bring a credible claim for her claim was not credible for all the reasons that were cited and i do want to address something that was raised earlier by mr chen's counsel when the ground for relief under the law i think that argument fails for several reasons first of all mr chen is the one who brought up whether or not his wife had a forced abortion there were questions about when he did it how he did it but he brought it up he put that issue into play their argument i think would be stronger had he not even mentioned it but once he mentions it it specifically contradicts mischance testimony and that's and that is the a huge part of why the immigration judge rejected her  i went through the judge's reasons for finding her not credible he said she did not elaborate very expanding her declaration he gives us more examples of what he was talking about none whatsoever he says she did not have a there's lots of detail on this he gives no examples of what he thought she should have provided additional detail producing at one point he says that she said that in february when she went on the task that she had been given she was told she was pregnant for four months that does not appear in the transcript every single time and she mentioned that she was tested seven times in the testimony she talked about being tested seven times and each time she says i was pregnant three mont at that time he also said inconsistent is not necessarily because at that time he had said that the abortion was not an issue he didn't even bring the abortion of her up until just at the time of the final hearing  abortion he said that she had had an involuntary abortion that had been her body that had his privacy had been invaded that she was the one who carried the second child to term always a fear afraid of being in discovered judge  didn't have any questions that she had had this that abortion ok thank you very much for your argument think both sides with their arguments just argued will be submitted for decision to seek the next case in the calendar which