consider include the petitions explanation for perceiving consistency and other record evidence that sheds light on whether this is in fact an inconsistency well the first issue in this case w that stated by the b i am that and the judge was that his testimony regarding his ability to obtain a passport in his own name and his ability to the park the airport with a proper exit visa stamp is inconsistent with his claim of being persecuted under the monitoring after he was he was detained well if you go to choose twenty eight of the record which is that which is the country conditional ports and you actually look at the last lines on the country conditional bord it says most citizens obtain passports all those those government deemed potentially threats including religious leaders political dissidents petitioners and ethnic minorities are ruled routinely refused passports and otherwise prevented from traveling overseas my clients not a religious leader as in the recent case in quo he was also not a religious leader and he was able to depart under a student visa so there i don't see an inconsistency here so at all but they did they didn't if i had three others as well back right and i'll move on to number two number two of the issue inconsistency i j states in her decision that he did not consider himself to be a christian i was even consider returning to china yet during the same period he followed in the sama application claiming fear of harm of being a christian book before an asylum officer in support of his application but as i say that i stated earlier in the law has to be perceived in consistency no where in the record does the i j a address to this to the petitioner as an inconsistency the i g only pulls out facts from tissues s decision does the petitioner only learn of the perceived inconsistency so he was never valid an opportunity to explain any consistency out on the record it was all piecemeal nowhere was he ever asked when you applied for asylum in the solemn office but you said you're not practicing christianity get an inconsistency personally i don't see it as an inconsistency because the questions he asked he was truthful and nothing on the record was inconsistent so i don't see it as inconsistency but if it was posed later on as an inconsistency on remand then i would have to say that he should be valid the opportunity to explain this inconsistency now moving on to the third issue right that was the issue that he was posed to the i g considered that i think it says we the between the respondents claim that he was a taxicab driver in two thousand and six whereas his household registry shows him to be working in a matter manufacturing industry well if you go back to page two twenty eight of the record which is the actual country condition reports if you go to the from the bottom the fourth paragraph where it says the household registry system in there it actually delineate it delineate that people that that it states two hundred seventy nine million persons live outside the jurisdiction of the house a registry of that number two hundred thirty six million individuals work outside their home district many migrant workers and their families face enormous obstacles with regards to working conditions and labor rights and many were unable to access public services such as public education so show szell social insurance and in the cities where they live and work because they were no legal they were not legal resident legally legally registered urban residents well if you go to let's go to the household registry on the household registry can mean once  on the household registry your honor it states that he moved in two thousand and sad so he was buying a home but it never shows that he was able to register his new job because he was moving outside of his district so why didn't the judge consider that  factor in making that decision she didn't look at it at all you know maybe the judge could i think the argument you're making is an argument you know could be made and logically to the fact finder but wasn't put in her analysis in the decision and if it was then i would say you're correct wrong but in this case in her decision she never addresses the how the actual country condition reports stating this portion of people living outside the district and where they work and how they can't register as it's good so the house a registry was designed so that not one billion people live in one area of china otherwise it would it would be overburdened and not one city so that's why they they cannot register their new jobs if they move and if they don't have the permission by the chinese government to do so and here he is he's trying to move if you go to the house or registry it says on the bottom buying a house moving decision from that well so if you compare in the new quo they actually look at religious persecution and the difference between who and well goo was able to actually practice his religion and go back to his home church they didn't stop him if they were not interested in him on the group but under my client's case he wasn't he had to give up practicing his religion in the home church he could no longer participate in it that was one of the the actual release conditions and that he had to report every monday other than that he was being worse then grew and he was attain longer then both of those cases the recent case he was the team michael was a team for eleven days he had bruises all over his body heat he was ignored about his conditions his medical conditions and then on top of it he you look at it you know that adding insult to injury they're like well why didn't you get medical treatment after release because i was healing inside a prison whereas the other two cases identified and said was important and of them that it would i found a little bit troubling of of concern i should say is that he didn't present a declaration from his wife he didn't present anything from the local pastors or ministers or whatever they might be called to his local church and that was important to the i j a correct but if let's look through the act and what it requires and the access i g first midterm must determine whether the petition has met the tish's burden weighing the credible testimony along with other evidence well here he wasn't found credible and more so if you look at the disposition of the judge in the mind set she was looking to deny this case before he even took any testimony that's on page one ninety one of the record ninety i'm sorry ninety one of the record if you go to ninety one of the records she states on the record on lines t and eleven sure you understand that if to if i heard this case today i would have to deny because you don't have those documents so how would you judge predisposed without hearing testimony to decide to deny case law on lack of documents before even taking one one word of testimony that's that's an actual contradiction to the eye and they die in a sense you have to first determine credibility what is the relief you're seeking a relief the relief we're seeking your honor is actually to remain back down for further fact finding an order to address and give him the opportunity to address these actual inconsistency and order to show that they aren't and if you use them found credible then to give him notice an opportunity pres presented explanations for the inconsistency is in his testimony that does not mean that the petitioner has succeeded on substantial evidence or maybe just quickly address some of them for example the first one was under surveillance yes your honor he provided testimony again that was on the whole not credible that his wife told him that officers had come to his home once a year for three years but in light of his other in light his ability to leave the country with a valid passport that he obtained after the beginning of the persecution he claims he suffered  of the record shows that that that that there are inconsistencies in his statement that he would be sought out should he returned to china the while the petitioner argues that his use of an agent to procure visa explains this inconsistency that argument is unavailing because he saw his passport through normal channels before he sought his fisa according to his own testimony and so the explanation he provided again is insufficient to overcome this an apparent inconsistency and the immigration judge was under no obligation to take that explanations true or us controlling and consistent case in the court may deny this petition for you on that basis alone because it's very important that the petitioner said that he did not consider himself a christian at the time that he applied for his  through affirmatively or through an asylum office that lived through an asylum officer can suggest that he is not being credible to the immigration judge as well while again the petitioner suggests that there another inference that the court can draw from his statements that he did not consider himself a christian during that year that he was not attending church services in the united states that is that he was a newly arrived non citizen and that he was lonely that's not the only inference that the court could draw and again therefore he has failed to meet the substantial evidence review sander and the court should deny the petition for review on that basis that is inconsistency between his testimony and his his account in his asylum application right that he was a taxi driver and that is how he became exposed to christianity and his household registry which says that he was a worker at a light factory now the petitioner offers numerous post hoc explanations which are similar to the ones that he offered during his testimony that he was not required to update his household registry because the work he was doing was a private was private work but that ignores the important distinction that the household registry was updated in two thousand and seven and so he it wasn't that he was registered as ally or her and then changed his job after the household registry it was created and therefore was under no obligation to update it but that at the time the registry was created or the one that we have in the record here he was already not in the employment that he stated that he's in and it's material because it's part of the origin of his claim inconsistent with his testimony that he started attending that church and in late two thousand and twelve but that i mean it was i think only a month jeff rense dot certificates that he became a member and january twenty third teen  he also submitted a witness list saying that he would bring the pastor from that church but he never did importantly the immigration judge asked for numerous forms of corroborated evidence she noted at the outside of the in the petitioners proceedings that he may not be able to that she required more corroboration than he had r d provided to bolster his claim and gave him specific examples of the kind of evidence that he could provide to strengthen his claim and he provided one of the things she requested but failed to provide or two of the things he requests she replies sorry three of the things she request other things and his explanations which the immigration judge gave him an opportunity to explain why he didn't have those other pieces of evidence that would have helped his claim were insufficient and the immigration judge wasn't required to credit his explanations as dispositive of his failure to provide that evidence he did provide a statement with regards to the manner of his exit from china and i did want to point out that we mis spoke in our brief when we said that he didn't provide that he did provide it but it was again insufficient to provide an explanation that didn't quite yes the discrepancy that the immigration judge noted in her decision which was that that his ability to obtain that passport which he did before the assistance agent again belied his claim that he would he fear being being persecuted immediately or being wanted by the police as soon as he arrived in china i would like to stress before i conclude if the court has no further questions that the court may deny this petition for a view and should on the basis of the adverse credibility determination alone as the opportunity for the petitioner to explain that corroborate but that provision is specifically qualified in that that notice an opportunity requirement only attaches and is not otherwise or is otherwise credible i'm sorry and so in a case like this where the alien is not considered credibly to have her got a credible testimony then a lack of corroboration is just another credibility determination the court determines that it is not supported by substantial evidence this court need not remain and so that the court could address the testimony assuming it was credible and the lack of corroboration because in this case the immigration judge provided sufficient notice to the kinds of documents that would corroborate the petitioners claim objection or fail to provide those documents and on the record the immigration judge asked him about those documents and allowed him an opportunity to explain those documents so just the fact that those explanations were unavailing to not put an emphasis on the court to remand this case it's the lack of crab aeration as an independent basis in this case even under ran as the court finds the petitioner was otherwise credible but more importantly in this case it is another factor that supports the adverse credibility determination he was othe this has to be done that again the statute and this court's decision and run beholder which interprets that statute is that the immigration judge must explicitly put the alien on notice of the kinds of documents you must provide give him to provide them and then when he fails to provide them give him an opportunity to explain why those documents were not available and here in this case your honor yes the immigration judge provided two warnings before the petitioners merits hearing in this case and told him exactly what kinds of documents would be helpful to his claims including things that he did provide such as his household registry and his supplemental david about his departure from china but she also noted that affidavits from family members and affidavits from pastors in the united states would be very helpful in corroborating his claim provide that evidence and when asked about it his only explanation was that he feared those documents would be given little weight because they would appear to be biased and the immigration judge heard that explanation but found it insufficient and so the statutory requirement and quite sufficient enron is is both supported by the record but the court need not get that far because if the court affirms the adverse credibility determination the lack of preparation is just another reason so addressing the notice that the judge gave to the client one of the things on the on page eighty three she requested was medical records well if you never saw a doctor why is she requesting documents that he never was treated so he going to be able to have to produce those documents when he never was treated by anybody in in china so to give a list that's that you can't get the documents because it never happened this is why after credible testimony after hearing everything the judge should come up with a list and give proper notice an opportunity but to give a generalized list beforehand and that doesn't meet even the affidavit in the record i mean that's set up to fail because the client would be able to get medical records that never existed more importantly what the judge in in his religious issues where she said he doesn't testify she never considered on part of page one eighty two lines one for twenty one it's basically states that also that and they actually page one eighty one that he had originally i had intended to give up my beliefs as well as my freedom should i have been able to give up my believes i would have gone back to china as a result after one year of my persistence which i didn't give up my beliefs so then i followed one friend to attend the new life church that is nowhere in her decision and balancing the circumstances that is not a christian he said i'm not a devout christian and he goes she keeps on pressuring say off oh i'm not a qualify christian so what does that mean i'm not qualified because i haven't been able to go to church and he explains why he hasn't been able go to church states just after arriving in the united states the friend i got to know was a very new friend and since i had america i had a new american life for a few days and by going down there for two times it was actually hard for me to find any job i had a language barrier which i was unable to communicate i feel so lonely so at that time i did have an intention to give up my beliefs so at that time i could have given up my beliefs and i would have gone ready to i