may eleventh two thousand and five the heart of the case seems to be this your client gave a very detail description of what happened to him at the hands of the hands of the years after the incident occurred and at this time he did not reveal the right to anybody when his hearing face in front of the immigration courts and and  in two thousand and three and that point he had charted to realize that it's something he should feel and talk about and he's still very hesitant to reveal or talk to anybody else he w that to the courts i don't even believe he revealed it to a doctor who subsequently treated him for an injury or medical condition he suffered as a result of the way the source  the apparent source of the the persecution that he suffered whatever it may have been was the fact that he was of japanese descent and he had married a navy for june is that correct that phrygian mormonism he's married to a different person not to this particular lady at the time and he was in teaching he also has his persecution is not just based on his first sat down to fill out his i five eighty nine thousand nine hundred ninety two and when he testified in court two thousand and two thousand and three the admission of the right this is a glaring inconsistency it's beyond a minor interviewed in an airport and did not mention the rate at the airport but mentioned it subsequently the court said that you can't really put a lot of weight on what's said in an airport interview because of the nature of this very fleeting and so forth and so on in this case the alien mr kato was supposedly working with an attorney and preparing a written statement under under the guidance of their attorneys so he had time number one he also claims that he recorded his way through the international human rights society two months after the wreck allegedly happened so the sponsor he went reported that so that would cut against his assertion that he was psychologically traumatized  for reporting the rape secondly the there's no medical evidence no record that he suffered from any type of p t s d sufficient to prevent him from having just close to rape beforehand so  cited by the board and they say go to the heart of his claim and i support the adverse credibility finding and his i five eighty nine which is the application for asylum in his personal statement he said that he was arrested because he was accused of destroying the fijian cultural heritage and that he was using his ethnicity using his wife to gain access to land but when he testified it was a completely different claim the claim shifted entirely he testified  that he was believed to have aided his political opponents by procuring weapons again his chinese said to him tell me what happened he gets one version of the story when he testified to get another version of the story now it's true that either  it's sufficient for the court to affirm and uphold the adverse credibility finding that wasn't the there he claims there were two incidents one in nine hundred eighty seven and the other in because of the ethnicity matter if you will the fact that he was married to a native the g n and apparently the locals didn't like that but the one nine hundred ninety s for that was after he became a sailor and  suspected him of supplying arms or something like that to an insurgency is that right that i think is claiming yes so so that doesn't sound like that's inconsistent if that is what the record  said that would not be inconsistent we would see but there are other a consistency is there but also with respect to the nine hundred eighty seven detention you mentioned that he was detained for six hours but if you look at his personal statement  pages one ninety seven to two hundred of the record he's talking about a thirty six hour detention six thirty six i think difference and consistency goes to the heart of this claim and sufficient to support the  association put his name and his phone number down but no further detail of what he was trying to complain or talk about he was never contacted by the human rights association and never had a chance to actually talk about it maybe that would have helped him to go through it and report it and there's a fundamental occasion earlier that never occurred he was never context as and by the time he left he never heard from anybody back in fiji his nineteen eighty eighty seven detention represented by an attorney when he filed his asylum application that is correct but i did some additional research last night and i came across a case which this court ruled upon which is small answers yeah i want to basically say that i think that ruling in that case should be extended to this particular case and we look at the application and his declaration it's written in the kinds handwriting yeah the application is tight but he's basically claiming to the government you might want to think about that yeah thank you for your argument the case just argued will be submitted for decision