inconsistency in us here is where i have a problem that i'm having a lot of trouble getting your client provided false information on the  so even if i agreed with you on everything else as to credibility where require job all the credibility determination based on even one brain so how do we get around the false statement on the is to have agreed to it you know that's not the test we need two o'clock i mean we we need to up we we have to hold a credibility determination you know if it's based on just one of many list reject the credibility determination based on a false statement on the asylum application so i mean your your arguments go to try are a fact but but i don't see how they they can convince us petitioner was specifically as he testified she was presumably told by her judge and also her attorney your criminal record is clean there was no record whatsoever and so we're talking about someone who's a foreigner from another country who has no nothing about the legal system in the united states and she says well i know i have no arrests i mean i think that that is something that you would you have to be compelled to state that this is not something that would go to her overall only only immigration ok so there was a lawyer with her when he went it when this was when she said that she had never been arrested so she she had  missed it doesn't have any bearing on judge and also her attorney your record is clean so for someone from another country when she hears that i don't think there's any reason for her to think that oh i have interest i have a conviction but case was dismissed also believe she doesn't have any record at all that's what she heard from her judge and her attorney and that's why we believe that in this case you would be compelled to reverse the judge's finding  yes we would have to believe that this is what the judge and her attorney told her and again do you just counsel through your own records firm that there was an arrest and that the case was ultimately just mr counsel i don't recall and  correct me if i'm wrong but i don't recall that she testified that the judge said that that meant she had never been arrested i don't believe she testified that anyone told her that she had never been arrested you know that was not the  are acquitted and have no criminal record are still arrested yes there are and i agree with that but what i'm saying is that st someone who has was from a foreign country was no legal training whatsoever i mean how many non lawyers the difference between arrest and a conviction and so when someone asks or about have you ever been arrested i think she thought well my judge told me that i had no record whatsoever and so she didn't put it in there but i don't think this is a deliberate attempt beginning what we have is a problem of not being honest about the her having that actually convicted but there's you go to great lengths to have some sort of a legal list of arguments about what being convicted means but the question is extraordinarily bro had records expunged convictions taken off of the record who were born in this country educated english is their st language who find it very confusing when asked to answer questions about what previously happened when judges tell them and they have records indicating that they're there their records were wiped clean so it it strikes me is not in any way an on reasonable proposition that the petitioner honestly believed she was she was correctly answering so i mean i think the argument that it's broad she should have known this i mean it obviously convince the finder of fact but i mean it has some logic behind it that the sisters argument yes you are that is sort of the interesting nature of an adverse credibility immigration court with her lawyer sitting there saying this is an actor in truthful application if there is any questions here this isn't sometimes why we have lawyers so when we look at the totality of the circumstances both in the broader that of course is part of why we do reliable years and when you have a lawyer sitting next to you and you've been represented by lawyers d a whole pine that it behooves you to take advantage of that there's additional notion that it bears a little but only present was in her testimony that she was told before the asylum application that this was going to happen and the backyard record that was her testimony right that was their testimony i just want to hear what we look at the facts and i was a woman because the immigration guys has all the facts before us and we want to be careful i want to be careful and present the facts of the court as are viewing court to say she was told she was being dismissed in the course of the i wonder how much how much we have just been focusing on one part of a lot of testimony the i g looked at and i noticed that in her summary she's the statement is in summary evidence in the record the court finds responding is not a credible witness particularly a motorist in china so there's all of this other stuff and then there's particularly the rest in china how do we know what else or do we we can't do anything about that what's the outcome well your honor we do know obviously as it as you point out we have been focused i've been focused on the conviction issue but we look at it in adverse credibility  we have additional concerns about the omission about the treatment and detention and then we have what is an omission and an inconsistency with our witnesses statement about whether a husband was fired or not because  supposed that isn't supposed environment and religion and then there's a general concerns about the timing of receiving the visa so one it is sometimes a difficulty when we are looking at totality of circumstances fast because we live in a th dimensional world where we have to talk about them one at a time but we have to consider them holistically so well i mean the conviction is only sort of the beginning of the concerns my review of the record unconvincing i find that she testified that she was denied food and i think fairly read it's the the inmates and although receiving a little bit of food on th day is theoretically inconsistent with never getting any food i don't i don't really find that compelling but i am having trouble getting past the criminal issue on a on another the wrong question that if we needed to reach the nd issue because we rejected the adverse credibility finding and my question was that that we would need to either reverse or remain and in light of well if we rejected your position on credibility you follow and you've done a nomination she said no she wasn't entirely sure the name of her church would also potentially reveal some thing about what she intended to practice the simple problem is we just don't have any evidence to show that she  if i recall correctly a question from the i j an on it wasn't that she was putting this in in support of her application and usually she simply was trying to according to her truthfully answer the i just questions about her husband she wasn't proper and it affirmatively she was just answering a question about sort of what's happened to your husband so that's a little bit different isn't it it's a little bit different it's off of course complicated because it's not merely an omission it creates an inconsistency with their witness or his d daughter's school and their home but there's no mention of the fact that he himself was supposedly fired by corporate colluding for her colluding with the religion it creates an inconsistency with her own  will be sessions is that the court stated that what we're looking at religious persecution is the risk reigns upon one's practice the religion and that is exactly what happened here she had to sign a promise letter stating that she would never return to the home church and even after