judge and also a form of her by the board of immigration appeals to one of the british believe fine is made by the immigration judge was that the petitioner was able to free to leave china with a valid passport  even though he testified that he was persecuted and arrested for protesting against the government deed judge found that it was impossible that he would be able to do it i were ever in his testimony that petitioner specifically testified that he was able to do this because his family member bribed the local officials the local officials told his family if he paid a ten thousand dollars bribe they would look past this act and he would not reported to the authorities which is exactly what the petitioner good his parents paid the ten thousand dollars bribe which would follow if that the local officials didn't report to the higher level it would obviously logically follow that the higher level would not know that there were any crimes against them was planted with them at the same time or shortly thereafter the police were going to his mother's house to inquire where he was even though on the set all been taken care of by the bribe i that's true  but i believe that those were the local officials that were doing this so again the local officials who arrested him specifically stated that they would not report this to a higher level what the higher level is it's a little bit unclear but again that would make sense  officials at the airport were not aware that perhaps he has some kind of charges pending against them also i think it's an all or over she she had it was she who had paid to bribe so they had every reason perhaps to go back and say we want more money in effect that's correct your honor so again i think that given his testimony it's logical to assume that the higher levels did not know about this because  the police told him they would just kind of dispense it and they paid the bribe in this is exactly what they did so we can even if we were to agree with you on this we could all polled the finding of the i j a and a b i if we find that some of the basis for finding your client certificates with him when he went to the united states in june of two thousand and thirteen this is important because the petitioner was asked at trial whether at night he planned to file for asylum before if you had not planned to file for asylum for the point that the immigration judge was making was that the petitioner all along had planned to file for asylum before he left china which would be contrary to his testimony however the p testified that when he went to obtain his passport to travel agency who prepared the passport for him specifically told him you need to take these other documents with you or else you might have an issue trying to we enter that country so that is why he took those documents with you as your question re enter which country i believe the travel agency told him that he might need those to reenter china when he returned that was my understanding but he knew that wasn't true those type of facts including the immigration judges finding that the manner of his testimony suggested that he wasn't credible why isn't that enough for us to deny the petition yes or no because i believe that if i correct in the testimony was that when he went to st take his passport in march of two thousand and thirteen that's when he was told by the travel professional that he needed to have these documents prepared let me ask the question which may also be for your adversary i'm a little unclear about where the law is on the one hand i see be not worthy of belief but on the other hand i see cases where it says that where the petitioner offers an explanation that the i j has to make a specific to terminations as to why that explanation was not plausible so so it doesn't follow from that  if in this case you know i truly thought your client was by his demeanor indicating less than total credibility the i j a still had to demeanor did note that there was issues with the particular demeanor when he was asked how he was easily able to leave china he said that the petitioner was basically non respons immigration judge found it implausible that the government officials would keep going to his mother's house asking for his whereabouts when the petitioner was already in the united states the petitioner stated a trial that he has no idea why they keep going to his mother's house that they were trying to convince perhaps his mother to have the petitioner come back to the united states and the immigration just basically was just not buying that answer and again he did he didn't specifically state why he wasn't buying that answer he basically said that it was impossible but having said that there was no way that the petitioner would know why the police kept coming to his house he'd never testified that he was expert on local police policies the judges ask him a question that he cannot possibly explain so again the immigration basically the judge basically said i found this this answer impossible as i stated in my brief there's a litany of reasons why the police may have kept going over to his mother's house perhaps they were trying to intimidate the family members to force the petition to come back and much are ok you know so let's hear from the government you'll have a little bit of time for bo evidence inescapable compelling evidence that he's telling the truth and that his claim is credible so you know while the petitioner spends a lot of time advancing arguments as to why the police may have done this or why they may have done that it's his burden alternately to to show that every one of the reasons given by the immigration judge and from by the board that is that is protested maloney was implausible is wrong judgement you asked a question finding and has to consider the explanations given by the petitioner i think that the record shows that he did do that if you look at pages seventy eight of the immigration judges decision and i don't recall offhand maybe i missed the bribe his testimony that the reason the police acted the way they did was because his mother paid a ten thousand dollars wall in broad i don't about about his mother paying the brother i don't know if it was or not i don't know but assuming for the sake of argument that it was not address and assuming for the sake of argument that it was a plausible explanation doesn't i'm looking at a case called risk it six  provide a specific and cogent reason for rejecting it close quote so that's that's what's troubling me here it may be that it wasn't a plausible explanation but assuming it was and it wasn't addressed don't we have to send it back you know why not because there are a number of other bases the the circumstances and there are a number of other bases that even if one is judged better points not even of one of the bases for implausibility can be explained away there are three or four others so i think actually on this point the i g did offer an explanation and your forty five but on this particular one i found it not at all supportable i mean what he basically said was why would they take so little if this was really treason worse addition it doesn't make a whole lot of sense so i think there is an explanation but i don't find it anything other than for that one instance speculation but as you say you even if we get rid of that one we'd have to do it for all of them in order to send it back track to correct and so what the i g is doing here you know he's the trier of fact he's in he's in the life courtroom calling balls and strikes and he observes the witness you observe the demeanor that's why the appellate courts have to give him so much deference to try to beef credibility findings particularly as they they relate to demeanor and this is stronger just of the grounds you seem to every time you're hit with one you sort of say but there are others so what's the strongest want to your view i think the strongest one is the certain that this kind of goes together the whole claim doesn't make sense but his assertion that the chinese government knew that he was a dissident or believed him to be a dissident they knew that he went to the united states yet  they didn't prevent him from leaving they were interested enough in him to allegedly make him come and check with them once a week at a report and then once a week like you know don't go out of town let us know where you are what evidence is there in the record that the local police who took an interest in him just in china in this region of china i don't even know what part of china this is in but what evidence is it is there in the record to support the inference that if the local police took an interest in him they would necessarily communicate that interest to whoever the people are at the airport as you heard your opponent mention so that they too would be on the same page i just didn't see anything in the record that would support the i j s i would call it speculation that there should have been this sort of  seamless coordination between the local folks and whoever the folks are at the airport so what do we have in the record that supports that well i'm i'm looking at it a little bit differently and i don't need to have what i'm looking at his claim we're validating the credibility of his claim as he makes it he's claiming that if he comes back to the united comes back to china he will be immediately arrested that's what he says so you know you take him at his word but by the local authorities no not by the by the national authorities because i think i think what its claim is and zealously arrested by initially i thought it was by the local local right ok so those are the only people so far as we know that have yet to take an interest in right right ok so so i assume his fear is if he comes back those folks again will take an interest in him and if again a bribe isn't paid they might well report his dissonant activities on to higher authorities but that hasn't happened yet so his most immediate a fear i assume is of these local officials and so i guess i'm just still wondering what supports assumption that the right hand on the left hand are going to be talking to each other in such a way that his explanation of i was allowed to leave the country without incident is completely impossible i just don't find anything to support that well  i j is considering his his claim it's his claim he's saying that i'm in danger and so is the i j is doing he's saying this is what you're this is what you're claiming it makes no sense to me because if what you're saying is you you know and they wouldn't have made it so easy for you to leave that doesn't make sense now one could argue you know maybe the locals didn't know or maybe the  national party didn't know but that's not the task for the court the courts task is to find out if if there's substantial evidence viewing that the circumstances as a whole to support the  credibility and i guess on as to this one it seems to me what we're trying to gauge is if the petitioner is telling the truth about his interactions with the local authorities right or is it totally implausible that he would have been able to go to the airport and travel outside the country with his own passport now i don't know anything about how the chinese government tries to crackdown on dissidents again how what kind of coronation there is between local and maybe more national authorities i have no idea about any of that plausible it's equally reasonable to conclude that his entire claim makes no sense as he presented it and we would thus argue that substantial evidence supports the at risk credibility fighting and ask the court to affirm the board's decision ok very good thank you very much thank you for your argument we'll give you a minute for rebuttal we've got quite a few cases today yes and you are just briefly i think that the immigration judges had a burst of credibility finally mostly was supported by speculation and conjecture i didn't find that there was any specific cogent reasons given to overcome to support any of these findings it was mostly well i don't believe it or it doesn't make any sense i don't think those are legal reason the ins to support it in the st credibility finally especially given the liberty interest at stake namely that we have a petitioner here who is seeking asylum claim mean that he was persecuted  by the chinese government ok and thank you counsel it's just argued is submitted