this case affirmed the immigration judges adverse credibility findings and also found that petitioners due process rights were not valid it because of faulty translations or the manner in which the immigration judge conducted the proceedings and looking at the totality of the  record petitioner testified consistently about the year of his first sexual encounter and the number of sexual partners that he had them and gratian judge question petitioner eight different locations regarding his first sexual encounter and each the giant asked the petitioner these questions because it also goes to the issue of the communication between the judge and the petitioner and possible faulty translation there were two  other than mr other than petitioners testimony and his declaration where he referred to his friend as davis there was no other evidence there was no evidence that this friend several different names so why couldn't he you know there's no presumption of credibility so why couldn't they decide that this was a discrepancy or an inconsistency in this case your honor we believe this was some minor inconsistency in the record that doesn't go to  three different names no your honor there is no evidence in the record other than the other than his testimony correct and i point to the court that this is a minor inconsistency and it's not really trivial i mean the real i d act specifically says for credibility determinations it doesn't have to go to the heart of the asylum claim and our cases just say but if it's utterly trivial or a typographical error but this is more than i have i think you agreed with that actually another name so there wasn't really a reason given well i think he did say that your honor i think petitioner did indicate to the judge then that's the name that he calls them by and i believe if i'm not mistaken in the inconsistent to have more than one name has that consistency i wouldn't say it's a big inconsistency your honor i mean my full name was and telecom are oseola but i go by angie it's not a big inconsistency i think nowadays it's very common for people to have their formal name and they go by a different name and it's also very common in the chinese culture lot of chinese individuals have their chinese name and then they use an american thing so i don't think it's something that's very uncommon reconcile these by claiming that they were male friends who didn't have sex with particularly since the declaration referred to his lover as his boyfriend so why couldn't the i inconsistency why couldn't you find that to be found it was an inconsistency and it was another one that went in this case was material because it was about his claim that he was persecuted on account of his sexual orientation right i think at this point your honor there was a cultural issue petitioner described to the judge that he didn't have to sexual partners he didn't testify throughout the record of various times that the two sexual partners were in regard to the boyfriends his definition of boyfriend was not the standard definition that we use here in the united states when you have a boyfriend you can have a boyfriend where it is what he said  good morning your honor so be it please the court for the respondent the attorney general the board of immigration appeals determination must be upheld because it is supported by reasonable substantial and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole why do no we did not meet his burden of proof he presented conflicting evidence and if you just look at the evidence he gave you can see he had no problem communicating he can he  that was his best language that he understood the interpreter he described his parents occupations the type of business is they had where their stores were located he talked about his facebook account and his migration history  he talked about the reason for leaving the jury or how the community has a law that says there is no homo sexual activity between a man and a man he says he's a homosexual he describes what it means to be homosexual he demonstrated a n understanding of the questions if you look at one particular question when he was asked how long have you been having sex with other men he asked for clarification yes the immigration judge how many years this relationship or how many times i've had sex he understood the questions he understood the interpreter and if you look closely at the record you'll see that he's going to change his testimony when he's confronted with inconsistency s for example when he's asked about the number of partners the judge is asking him of i met him where i ran to once and later he changes his testimony and he admits when there he's asked so from two thousand and four to two thousand and ten did you have a sexual relationship with any other men says the person that caused my running away was cheema that relation the sexual relationship i had with him in two thousand and thirteen then he says no i did not have any sexual relationship with any of them and it's inconsistent when he has demonstrated understanding of the language another inconsistency where he changes his testimony is when they talk about like you had mention the name of his roommate where he says then they confront him well in your declaration you called him davis he says oh i call him a lot of things i call him davis i also concha joke so you call him by three names yes it's when he's confronted with in consistenc roommate by by a consistent name it certainly can seem to be a discrepancy when you have your for your declaration appended to your application saying i see it with my friend davis and then testimony it's not if it's someone else i mean we see that a lot that there's a change between your application and your testimony because you forgot what you said and your application correct i could believe i suppose correct and that was not the only inconsistency he was asked about the number of times he was attacked and he changes his testimony he says they called me in two thousand and four they called me in two thousand and thirteen two thousand and fourteen and that's the day i packed and then he says how many times were you caught in homosexual activity two times how many times were you attacked because you were homosexual three times so why did you say in your declaration that you were attacked in two thousand and four in two thousand and thirteen and that you were attacked in january february and march that's five times well two thousand  that's the one i was caught january march the times anyone sees me they come after me with a machete to hurt me so in total you were attacked five times why did you say three times well two thousand thirteen was when i was caught red handed then the other was when people recognized me and started to attack me ok and every time you managed to escape yes so that leaves actually to another question which is to what extent can we consider the opinion a little bit ambiguous as to what it was relying on because it's the immigration judge or adverse credibility finding out specific reasons including significant inconsistency is in the response testimony in the documentary evidence and gives examples for example for examples so the question is whether these are mere examples and we can look at other significant relationship found that the i j provided him with opportunities to explain but he was unable to persuasively do so and you know because his claim lacks for a recipe he has not satisfied ok i think that you can look at the discrepancies that the board points to and they can be viewed as attempts to enhance his claims of persecution his testimony was not internally consistent it did not comport findings we didn't talk yet about the discrepancies the other discrepancy the be which was the discrepancy between what he testified his birth date was and the date on his national id card and the date on his driver's license and the briefing points to the twenty thirteen state department report which says the nigerian government doesn't require birth registration and the government has a record keeping but i wasn't clear whether there was evidence in the your voice i don't really recall that ok so you're not aware of anything in the evidence well as the opposing coun you your honor and your honors in the last minute that i have left i would also like to bring up to the court the due process argument that we brought up to the board of immigration appeals and the due process argument was that the immigration judge well laid it petitioners to process right they don't rely on their finding for adverse their affirming that i chase adverse finding credibility on the testimony that was private and by the judge but we believe that by the judge brin testimony her opinion of the petitioner system money might have been tainted because she had petitioners to inspire others testimony in her mind just for the reference to the court petition testify on july fifteenth two thousand and fourteen and on that same day the judge rendered the denial in his twin brother scase so all the facts and testimony regarding the twin brothers case was present in the judge's mind your