to the department of homeland security for its review the immigration judge questioned these documents because she claimed that his signatures on the identity documents were different than his signature on e if we look at the documents and agree that it doesn't look like they're the same with either of course my answer is no your honor i'm looking at the documents just like you are not and i think that there is no difference between  not a handwriting expert and but that's really the whole point neither is the immigration judge or the d h s s attorney that first raised the issue more importantly if this was such an issue the originals were submitted to the d a a chance they could have submitted study document to for analysis to confirm the validity of the signatures that were there at the authenticity of the documents more to the point this finding was this issue was raised after examination ha familiar with his own religion not knowing about the five k and not knowing about princeton hall they actually dispute that your honor i think he did give credible testimony consistent testimony about the that he wanted to convey his asylum application was drafted and prepared by an immigration consultant and so he's saying this was a mistake and the speculation by the immigration judge was well if you could see by looking at her whether or sikh is one if he was present at the ceremony and saw it for himself or to her she told him and he says truthfully in this hearing throughout the course material i don't remember i wasn't there i don't remember the ceremony or i don't remember she told me party were were protesting the nuclear agenda of the indian government because they had set off a nuclear blast i see so your interpretation of they made a bomb blast is the government they the government  account of the third arrest well which is if you're going to question his version of how the third arrest occurred though the process by which the immigrant and the police entered his his work site and arrested him then you're not assuming argue window that he's testifying credibly it's just simply not a credibility factor she said that or is that even if he testified truthfully he didn't lay a sufficient factual predicate to establish the next that's not necessarily well you're saying burden of proof but it sounds like credibility to me because i'm asking whether from an intellectual standpoint it's in conflict for the fact finder to believe what the witnesses saying but nonetheless conclude fashion that you've described without any sort of tip off you know without any and so there and therefore it sounds like a credibility factor and she's complained the issues however i will say that even if we can say that she has not completed the issues i i would  there's cases like these when the judge says it's a it's a legitimate police investigation i don't know how that could be in this case clearly here he was engaged in nonviolent protests of indian government of the indian government and its policies against s and nuclear agenda and he was and it's not a coincidence that he'd be arrested after peacefully nonviolently protesting these that these incidents and these that this agenda and policies and would be arrested and  not credible the court should deny the petition because there is no evidence that compels a conclusion contrary to the agency's this court held in cases such as wang against high and asked that one significant discrepancy going to the heart of of the asylum claim is sufficient to support the adverse credibility finding the immigration judge found for such discrepancies in this case and i'll review them before i do that though i'd like to emphasize that the immigration judge was not the only agency official to never we've never asylum officers were for on a different standard that's not something we review i understand your honor and it's actually not and the record on what basis it was referred but it was referred regarding the discrepancy between the whether or not the mother was baptized i would emphasize that respondent petitioner repeatedly adopted his declaration during the course of the immigration court proceedings and not only that but at page three fourteen of administrative records you have the preparer certification that this document that the declaration was read back to the petitioner in his own language so the claims that he didn't understand what was in his declaration really fall flat have a little bit of difficulty understanding why the fact of her baptism or not baptism has anything to do with the heart of his climb given that it's a different sacked because i got to tell you know my i was thinking about this this morning i couldn't tell you whether my mother was baptized or not we went to church every sunday as a prostitute religion but if you ask me true i would assume so but you have asked me now i have no idea i understand your clients to differ and what is the go to whether i have faith or not or whether this person has faith or not based on what a fact that occurred in his mother's life when he was born we are only told this during the proceedings that it was important to his claim he made a point of saying that attending the good war with his mother was a inconsistent but tell me why you think it really goes to the heart of the client because i think that it shows that someone who claims that they are very devoted to the sikh faith is not aware of things that they should be aware of and i would also point out page one thirty seven the record of the state department previously said that devotion to sikhism is important in these kinds of claims so the respond i have an important motivation here to show that he was truly  so he was willing to change his testimony to conform to his declaration and i think that's an important point supporting the immigration judge's decision the contradiction that i'm not  think well i think that's true on i mean you can say well what would a six year old remember but at the same time this is someone who again claims very devout devotion both to the sikhism and to his federation membership and o to the to his own political views and he seemed to have inherited these from his father and then his inability to remember whether or not he saw his father being politically active and his willingness to change his testimony on that point i think do go to the heart of the coin because it all concerns his politics and whether or not he actually had these beliefs the fourth doc or the fourt inconsistency that the immigration judge relied upon was the inconsistent signatures and i would respond to question is this a factual financing clearly it is i think when a judge looks at two documents each with law if if the i j a or the vi is going to make an adverse credibility finding on a particular factor like this we've held that you have to give the petitioner an opportunity to revote that how do you address that yes your honor going through the record very carefully on that point and i could not find that he'd actually been asked to explain why a different signature appears on his federation membership card but i'm not sure that the court's case law actually talks about inconsistency in documents as opposed to in consistency as in testimony and that's really all i can say i think to that point i would emphasize also there is a case of the kumar decision where the court talked about whether or not there a need for expert testimony regarding handwriting analysis that case is not a political case here in that case the immigration judge had compared one character  a number i believe and concluded that based on that one character there was a difference and therefore one document was forged here we have a radically different signature that i think is apparent to any lay person and particularly to someone with some expertise of looking at a m applications such as the immigration judge would have and i'd encourage the court to look at the federation membership card in the lower right hand corner you'll see that there's a space that says member and there's a signature that doesn't look anything like any of the signatures on the asylum application and he repeatedly signed the asylum application so there are certainly plenty of exemplars for the immigration judge to look at  i'll agree with petitions counsel that there actually was not evidence in the record talking about what kind of holiday this was but i think what's important at that point and this is a p g eighty nine of the record is that at one point the petitioner is willing to call the saki and diwali is almost the same holiday he tries to allied them and he's trying i believe and i believe that the immigration judge had in mind that that the inconsistency identif inconsistency in the record as well for example he said after his first arrest that he was taken to the south are police station when in fact his declaration says he was taken to the cia staff which i wonder if that's a distinction that even he recognizes later in his testimony granted the agency didn't point to that inconsistency but i think it also supports the agency's conclusion based on the inconsistency that they did cite i'd also point out the school leaving certificate of page three zero four of the records that honors i'd like to point to page ninety one the record regarding this inconsistency about whether or not he saw his father being politically active it's clear that on page ninety one on line  fifteen is the question that the petitioner did not understand the question initially and sort of having it explained to him it was simply repeated and it was not restated it was simply repeated and it's clear on and succeeding pages through page ninety three of the record that it clearly appears that petitioner thought the question was if you see your father join and in fact on page ninety three he even says that on line five that's what i don't remember that when he joined so it's clear that initially he believed the question was did you see your father join of course being a young child around the age of six or seven he went to remember that and but then when the question was restated at that point he confirmed then clarifies that's my yes i saw my father