to the chase i had the good fortune of serving as a law clerk for this court for a year and during that time dozens of immigration cases came through chambers and frankly very few of them were decided in favor of the petitioner so when the court appointed me to represent mr wang in this case the first question i had and the fundamental question i would like to address that the outset here today is what makes mr wines case different and worthy of the court's consideration in reversal and i think there's three answers to that question first i believe that the boarding gauged in sort of a grammatical hide and seek making assumptions about words in order to create inconsistency and there are two examples of this the first being mr wang's use of the phrase by chance with regard to his adoption of christianity and he testified that he was down and out he was without faith and he happened to come across a minister a christian minister and ultimately adopted the religion what he wrote in his asylum application was that he went to mass by chance now by chance has two equally except it will definitions the government doesn't dispute this and one of those definitions is without a plan therefore mr wang's testimony is perfectly consistent with the meaning of by chance he didn't meet mr wong with the intent  let's assume for the moment that we allow all those claims independent or dependent on each other i think they're totally independent of one another in their separate bases ok so is that true respect to the adverse credibility finding as well for example if if we were to agree with the board that the adverse credibility findings with respect to his religious claim should be sustaining what's the consequence of that hypothetically well i think if the court finds that a portion of mr wang's testimony lacks credibility then quite frankly it would probably have the ability to  doubt the rest of his testimony but in order to get there the court has to have a legitimate specific coding reason for doubting his credibility in the first place sure but i guess what i guess my question is more like for example  if we were to say well that the substantial evidence supports the board's finding of adverse credibility that affect their religious claims but it does not support the board's finding a very versed credibility credibility with respect to the family planning claims one of the consequences i think that he would still have a valid claim under one of those independent baby he's you know you can get an alien can testify about two different aspects of their claim in the court may say you know i don't believe you about this part but we do believe you about this part and if and if indeed that is the case and he was persecuted on account of his objection to the family planning practices in china then he would have in my view a basis for not only for asylum but withholding of deportation and relief  blanket adverse credibility finding if there is no basis for questioning his credibility about in separate and independent basis of his immigration claim and again if if an alien were to testify in an incredible manner about the way in which he entered the united states for example and the court were to say we don't believe you on that aspect but we do believe you about what happened to you back in your home country then i don't think that the court would be prevented from doing that you discovery of the pregnancy and i think it's just a plain reading of the asylum application that shows what the board has done here the application says my wife became pregnant her employer found out about it and then in a separate sentence it says she was forced to have an abortion and what the board has done and what the government's not on appeal is assumed that what mr wang doesn't speak english meant was that the employer discovered the pregnancy reported it and forced her to have an abortion that's just not what the application says the second reason why this case is different than other immigration cases is the catch twenty two that mr wang was put into by the board and what i mean by that is that he testified for hours on the witness stand literally the testimony spans over one hundred pages but his asylum application contains a one and a half page narrative so the board came in and faulted mr wang for providing more detail orally than he provided in his one and a half page application and then in the rare instance where the board was satisfied with the detail in the application for example with respect to the threats against his family after he left the country the board then criticizes mr wang for not mentioning that on direct examination so it's kind of a lose lose situation for mr wang in the census and that's just not permitted by this court's precedent and finally the last difference between this case and others was what i believe to be the misleading interrogation by the immigration judge i think the record speaks for itself on this point but the government has conceded on appeal that there was at least one misstatement in the immigration judges questioning of mr whiting to the extent that a inconsistency arises from misleading erroneous cross examination by a judge that's certainly not the basis for an adverse credibility finding those cases that say that in fact that he case and the giro vs case talk about the requirement and the importance of an unbiased fair immigration judge now in my opening brief what i said was there was only one real inconsistency in this case and that was with respect to the timing and circumstances of his jailing by the police the ins has conceded on appeal that that point is moot because it wasn't part of the board's adverse credibility finding so the only inconsistency that are created here were created out of the three categories i discussed above none of which are permissible for an adverse credibility fighting lester questions i'll reserve the balance of my time you do so because we will hear from the government case to demonstrate that the record compels reversal of the board's decision and from a procedural standpoint he was given every opportunity to do so dismissed claims reviewed by an asylum officer the immigration judge and then by the present credible evidence on both hypothetically and disagree with them apart on an adverse credibility fine where does that leave us in other words let's assume from you could you could assume either y that we agreed on the family planning or you agreed on on the the board adverse credibility finding on his religious claims where does that or does that leave the claim if we think one claim is good and the other one is not with respect to the board finding some credibility case but i guess my i guess so put a little differently in order to sustain the board's credibility findings the first credibility findings have to go to the heart of the client so it seems to me that if you have two independent one based on or both of them based on different adverse credibility findings those findings don't necessarily translate to the other client because they have prescribed credibility determination would not go and certainly not go to or not the claims are independent or not with respect to the others credibility determinations well at this point your honor it's the government's position  there was substantial evidence to support the credibility finding with respect to the family planning claim but we're not persuaded on the religious claim what happens what what's our role at that point doesn't didn't doubt that in general individuals are persecuted in china on account of the family planning policies in this case the board found that p didn't credit credibly establish the facts of his claim and it provided numerous material it highlighted numerous discrepancies between petitioners evidence and his claim to submit he was given as the record shows about a year to submit for example the notice the sterilization notice to report for sterilization that seven of the records you thirty one to forty two petitioner had testified at page one ninety nine that he had a copy of the letter that he had sent to the  it's the government's position that just simply didn't meet his burden of proving his claim on account of china's family planning policies you very briefly to get back to judge thomas point you know there is one in the circuit that says that if you're going to have an adverse credibility finding there has to be a nexus between the credibility finding an additional client i think from that wide self you can derive the rule that judge thomas is referring to where if there is an adverse credibility finding over here there's an independent claim over here that is supported by credible evidence that in fact you would have a credible claim and the right to asylum or withholding of deportation now and to have a case that pulls a well there's numerous cases the talk about the nexus requirement where you'll have peripheral say minor inconsistency in the testimony but i think that from that it's that general rule of requiring a nexus from credibility to the claim itself and that you can draw the rule the judge thomas was talking about and i apologize that i don't have a case that says that ok directly  secondly in terms of what should happen to this case if the court finds that there is a basis for for no basis for credibility on either claim there should be not only with asylum order but also withholding of deportation under the to you and the final thing that i'd like to say your honor is that the immigration judge although she had real concerns about mr wang's testimony she said in her order that if he were credible he would be entitled to asylum and i think that that's critical if the court finds that there's not a specific cogent reasonable basis for this credibility finding then mr wang is entitled to asylum in this case and i think you counsel the case just argued will be submitted for decision