has a well founded fear future persecution i guess obviously the thing to bother the i j a here was why the husband didn't at least give an affidavit and what was what is the reason for that i don't know why he didn't ninety seven so i understand your point but there are still things that as both the i j a and the b ira say you know he could have fleshed out and did not do so i would agree that there are things that he could have corroborated but it's not fatal to her claim and the error below is the fact that she didn't corroborate the very things that the immigration judge and the board of immigration appeals were expecting him to corroborate she did provide united states at the time of the forced abortion and the problem is that the immigration judge did not conclude that the u s based medical records were merely he or say an insufficient u s immigration judge did not conclude that the mother in law's  firsthand account of the four sterilization that miss don's cousin mr chen who also provided a statement regarding the forced abortion was not sufficient immigration judge provided no analysis of the corroborating documents he merely focused his entire decision as did the board on the failure to provide the husband and this court's the second requirement in this court's report test in a daw it is explain whether or not the applicant has provided robber ation and the immigration judge did not give any discussion of the corroborating evidence so it's not that we're asking this court to weigh the us based medical records the letter from the mother in law the letter from cousin chen against the failure to present the husband testimony the error below was the fact that the immigration judge nor the board failed to provide an analysis of this other corroborating evidence so you want to remain and in order for that to be done precisely on and that's why  the the error below we feel is readily apparent the failure to analyze this evidence and the relief that we're seeking is relatively modest that in light of the failure to present the husbands corroborating affidavit or testimony whether or not the other corroborating information was efficient to meet her burden of proof and that has not been analyzed there's been no explanation and no discussion blow by either the i j a or the board and we would respectfully submit that in fact this evidence is inherently more reliable than what would have been the husband's also hearsay testimony that he was not present in at the time of the relevant events the immigration judge said he wanted the husband to provide testimony regarding two things the government issued documents confirming that he did travel to china in one thousand nine hundred six these were ins documents showing advance parole they gave a copy of his passport with the staffs reflecting the dates of travel and they gave the original is i ninety four it was the least that the government asserted that it was fraudulent and there was some evidence of that effect how do you counter that well you're not there was in fact the contrary affidavit from an expert from the political asylum research hospital and aside from the fact that this is essentially asking the persecutor whether a persecutes and taking their statements will hardly the immigration judge did accept the fact that there was contrary evidence that there wasn't fact questions as to the methodology used to reach this conclusion and did not base is decision on the fact that the us is going to leave you working for the chinese the us consulate in rome joe concluded that this document was in fact  fraudulent so given the fact that there is contrary evidence and the fact that the immigration judge did not accept the conclusion that it was fraudulent now he didn't necessarily accept the document for the truth truth the u it to discredit missed on either and so the the conclusion that this document was fraudulent in no way undermines the mist on this claim for asylum particularly where she did present other answered in the a bill i stand which is whether or not the the applicant has in fact writing provided corroboration now the immigration judge and the board focus exclusively on our failure to provide her husband's testimony but that does not necessarily mean that she did not provide saying that didn't happen that's not correct why did they not at least coordinate as opposed to corroborate well i mean i can answer that question  i can only search and does say also i guess all she said at the hearing was just that's just not true she said that's not true but she also pointed to the fact that she had not been in touch with her husband and in fact if you look at her her statements given at the airport upon arrival in the united states they asked her why she was coming to the united states she says well i was for i was subjected to a forced abortion and i'm coming to look for my husband who i haven't been able to find so she wasn't necessarily in touch with there has been at the time of the prior testimony or the his prior application and she further serves on during her testimony that she did not know any of the contents of her husband's application first time she was learning of it in fact was when the government raised it during that when did her husband apply her husband apply for asylum in one thousand nine hundred one and his hearing was in provided that again it was decided almost exclusively on the failure to provide the husband's corroborating testimony and there's been no analysis of the other evidence and it is well established that when and i jamie i reach in terminations they must do it on the record not as a whole and there is no indication whatsoever that that's been considered now they don't obviously have to explain every piece of evidence but particularly where they're finding a lack of corroboration and there's an explicit requirement contain and i'm delighted that they must explain whether or not a fact i find you credible but i believe that you need to corroborate what you've said by among other things or certainly by the testimony of your quote star witness your husband abdul i says that has to be central to your case what if her husband wasn't there in ninety seven wasn't in china wasn't in the country when  both of their claims are based on an abortion that it doesn't make it irrelevant just because they completely disagree on it and that have to be central she had at least six items that the i the statement from her mother in law who had immediate knowledge of what was going on in ninety seven a kind of college just check up certificate from her hometown a statement from her relative confirming where she lived when she went to hiding in ninety  seven a certificate of induced abortion from the hospital on top of health hospital in that province that the government claims was fraudulent but she claims was not we have copies of her husband's travel documents to show that he was not in china in ninety seven and we have the whatever it's worth the us medical records that she told her doctor in two thousand and one that you had it forced abortion and ninety seven that's compared to what usually done or given as evidence in these cases this is quite quite a lot well you have what the increase breaks down though is on step one the first step of the inquiry is to identify the testimony and for which corroboration would be helpful and so that testimony is that her abortion occurred in one thousand nine hundred seventy and she has a lot of corroboration now there is something hanging out there that is like a stone left unturned that is a date in her husband's application but that's that's not something that needs to be corroborated that's kind of a straight remark and it seems to me that that explaining that you know  you have six items of corroboration but you have a seven that doesn't really that is inconsistent do you have to describe aeration require that that every stone be be turned over  cross examination it's clear that something happened you just got wrong what it was to be confuse isn't it possible the judgment also that he got it confused as to exactly what took place in ninety two well i think that his asylum application is  abortion in ninety seven and somebody goes ha i've got something here your husband's testimony by the way he hasn't appeared and he said that you had a forced abortion in ninety two and yet the i j a comes down and says i find her credible sort of that say i have six things in these either are or are not ok as to ninety seven so i need the seven thing i need him to say oh sorry i got it wrong it was a different thing that happens the i u d that happened then it wasn't the forced abortion but that that second step that the i j a did not say you know i i think it's ok but i  story but not a single one of them explain the discrepancy between her claim that occurred in ninety seven and her husband's claim that it occurred in one thousand nine hundred what is what's what what standard are you under abdulai are you under what are you  ambrose that comes down today and that's really a credibility determination and did the i j a say oh well because that hasn't been explained i think the inconsistency created thereby makes her story  that happened in ninety seven incredible well i mean that's still not going to happen at some point to me this how this all happened to her or anyone saying it didn't happen to her and if it happened to her and we think it could happen again is that enough well your honor the point is that again it's the agency making the start determination and so the question is whether any rational adjudicator can make this determinative point is as a matter of law under law is this a matter that should be subject to corroboration remember that idolizes that corroboration can be required on facts which are central to the claimant easily subject to verification now she what was central to her claim is that when he wasn't in the country she had a force the borscht and she has a number of items out there that it took to verify that and again she was assume from that that they didn't find that there were contradictions correct out of a nut suggesting that there's a one hundred percent logical connection between the two there's a subtle distinction between of the burden of proof and the credibility finding just because someone's found not credible that doesn't mean they meet their burden of proof in that instance mean it just seems to me in this case the i j a thought that he should do that they did the they should have heard from the husband either in person or by affidavit and even told them some time before that that we expect the er few testify and for whatever reason the husband never correct it sounds to me like there was some disappointment as a result of that that the complete story could be told but i'm not sure that constitutes the absence of cooperation well would again i would disagree i would say that it was completely rational for the immigration judge and completely fair for the immigration judge to ask for that explanation where again if you look at the husband's asylum application completely contradicts what she said that i don't think that's abdulai i think we're in kind of a hybrid you know i'd like talks about when it's reasonable to expect corroborating evidence an otherwise credible applicant who ne it's hard to believe that you couldn't get the doctor's certificate or you couldn't go to the lengths of getting the report from the doctor where you walked in and said i had a forced abortion in one thousand nine hundred seven with no motive to lie because you're talking your doctor didn't produce that and they're like oh well because all of the i j a in the eye she says you know story sounds good to your man or credible but you know you don't have what you normally should have in a case like this you can easily access something and you haven't done it myself this case this case is this happened and there's ten things that says it happens but there's this i call it the stone unturned of the husband having filled in a blank saying something happened in ninety two and as and i mean if he says oh no it did happen in ninety two i mean she has her operating evidence why doesn't that and there sufficient corroborating evidence i don't think he went into depth into into that but again he was focusing on the specific question right here the specific again the mothers but the let me let me say the whole therefore i can't you know i can't grant it here you didn't really you know really say that well your honor i would disagree he said that she failed to to present adequately corroborating evidence and i j is allowed to consider that in meeting burden of proof whether or whether or not she met her burning proof apart from the credibility determination they are two separate determinations so again it it doesn't seem irrational for him to ask for corroborating evidence to ask for evidence that would explain this discrepancy in her testimony you know it's not irrational him to ask for him to say you know johnny meant to say that the husband is the quote star witness close quote and therefore he must be here seems to be a bit of a stretch when there was nothing he could really witness about one nine hundred ninety seven when he wasn't on the scene well it would have been completely fine for provided that would been clearly reasonable they were living together at the time of the hearing and again she has never explained even to today why that wasn't available why she couldn't bring that before but that's not the point the point is that  noted it was made pretty clear that to her and her counsel that they that the i j a was going to be certainly disappointed if the husband didn't show up to testify or in some way give evidence but he didn't and we can surmise what the reason is but despite that once she was found credible that is that she tells the truth with respect to what happened to her that someone who has found credible is deemed to have told the truth in that instance but the case law does set out the separate distinction between the two doctrines and the question is not whether or not the question is whether or not the agency erred in making its determination under the credibility standard which at this point it doesn't it doesn't appear that the immigration judge did anything  e to assess what has been provided as corroboration and determined whether it's fission terms of the things she did provide then that's that's separate apart from substantial evidence isn't   i think the problem is we're getting a little bit confused as to the difference between where it's reasonable to expect corroboration of a fact and where it's reasonable to demand an require as fatal to a claim specific evidence and failure to present that specific evidence constitutes a failure to meet the burden of proof the immigration judge essentially made the conclusion that failure to present the husband was fatal to the claim without any analysis of why the other evidence presented was not sufficient the board of immigration appeals on page four of the record specifically shows that it's weak making the conclusion that the failure to present the husband's testimony was fatal to the claim without any analysis whatsoever the other evidence the board specifically says rather because the respondents testimony is weakened by her husband's statements there is a greater need for the respondent to sufficiently corroborate her claims but then they give no explanation of whether or not she did therefore there was an error of law in the misapplication of the abdulai standard in the matter should be remanded for a proper analysis of the evidence presented in this record for determination of whether or not  met her burden of proof through crabb aeration although just as we can adopt a test under abdulai we haven't spoken as to whether you could do what the i g did here it's a variation on the law and what it would say is that where there is some corroboration but nonetheless there is an inconsistency  haven't met your burden unless she can further corroborate to make that inconsistency go away i mean isn't it possible that confronted with this different fact pattern different  that we would say well in this instance you know if it's reasonable for the i j a to need where it clearly should be available to the and have a question if this inconsistency instance that's not what happened it's not that the immigration judge said well you have seven pieces of evidence prison present but this stone left unturned and for because that stone was left unturned i'm going to find that the respondent is or has not met her burden of proof because that stone is so essential and it outweighs the other seven pieces of evidence that's not what happened what happened was that the immigration judge or only focused on the unturned stone and gave no discussion no  and basically entirely ignored all the other evidence and left this court essentially to guess whether or not the judge in any way considered the other evidence i believe he specifically discusses his application of this unturned stone to the saying well this is a modified a bill or whatever he wants to say he actually is in his language applying the of the last under and i respectfully submit that he misapplies it because he simply focuses on that one piece of evidence without an explanation as to why under the he misapplied those facts we agree with you what do you ask us to do with this case or remain to the immigration judge for analysis of whether or not the corroborating evidence provided was sufficient to overcome its participation for missed on to meet her burden of proof that's not to say the immigration judge can't consider that the failure to present some evidence for the immigration judge needs to explain why that failure is fatal where there was other corroborating isn't it reasonable for us to read the record that the what the an cooperated story and therefore we don't think that dawn has met her burden of proof isn't that really what the v a was saying it to be honest and say it as simply as i just did i would think that that's possible that would be i j saying but in that case it seems that the guy jurors are expecting her to corroborate the night the claim that in one thousand nine hundred two she had a forced abortion something which she is not making she is it seems that the immigration judge was expecting her to provide corroboration or an explanation of this value i to be honest i mean it's possible that that's what the i g was attempting to say but the fact that he did not give any explanation or show that he had any consideration of this other evidence really leaves it far too open of a question as to know whether the i g intended that and it's not for this court to guess what the i j a was intended the edges decision you know stands and falls on the language contained in that decision and there is no discussion whatsoever of the other highly relevant evidence presented confirming the one thousand nine hundred seven abortion and so if that's what the i j a intended to say then we need to hear him explain it and why the other evidence is insufficient and that would be subject to any review understand what you're saying but is corroborating might not an argument be that there's no corroborating evidence needed here at all for the nineteen it's possible considering the fact that the immigration judge found her credible it is certainly possible that the could make that determination but abdulai is where when someone is otherwise credible yes your honor and so you are credible but it's the kind of situation where the elephant in the room is that there's so much availab stuff that could support what you said credibly said that because you haven't come forward with it you haven't met your bird or right and in that instance where that's the first part where it's reasonable to expect corroboration and i need to shift to the second but i guess maybe my hang up is on step one is it reasonable to expect corroboration with respect to someone who wasn't there at the time of the alleged incident your honor and our position and as we can see in our brief is that it's reasonable to expect corroboration of the forced abortion it is unreasonable to expect that the husband provide hearsay testimony would my time is up is that the immigration judge notes in his decision that the husband was the second person who she missed on told of the forced abortion and he said they would be reasonable to expect the second person who learned of it and in that remarkably he makes no mention of the fact that he did provide an affidavit from the