failing to explain why he was arrested in one thousand nine hundred two but his father was not mr sings explanation it's not fourth in two different places page one eighteen which is the asylum application says my father told me that he was the one told the police when they had arrived that he was the one who profited against the election and the court of the mass boycott the police told him that he had already been warned he should not take any political activities in the future that you did not listen now we are going to give you a lesson and they arrested me he gave the same explanation when asked about this on page seventy one of the transcripts and he said what was the reason you were arrested his initial response was it was because my father had boycotted the polls it's transcribe his words and i think he said polls then after that the police raided our house and i told my father we have a rest of you before you did not understand and now we will tell you why you don't understand we will show you what we meant basically and this is on page seventy one the i j a just never quote the wrong things that he had been doing again the immigration judge never asked him about this and this is important because mr singh testified at some point quote we were all demanding palestine but no one ever followed up to ask him what in particular he was doing to demand that's on page seventy four of the records and he didn't really testify as to any specific speedy u s troops other than his general support for college that's exactly right but again nobody ever asked him specifically what you had done the third a discrepancy the immigration judge says he failed to provide any explanation why the police would have been would have suspected him of having something to do with the assassination of the thing nobody ever asked him why the police might have suspected him any explanation he may have given may have been speculative but no one ever asked him then the i j a said he provided no plausible rational explanation why out of all the people in the village only he was arrested in the immediate aftermath of  he did on page seventy five of the record he explained they came to the village and who's ever names they had they went to the house they came to the village they came to our farm also they went to other people's houses but they couldn't find anyone home he explained why he was the only one arrested as evidently they were working off a list they went to various people's homes he was the only one unfortunate enough to be found at home but the immigration judge didn't grapple with that explanation at all he ignored it the immigration judge found the discrepancy between the stor singh's testimony suppose a testimony that the police don't arrest women and certain documentary evidence he cited to certain ninth circuit decisions that indicate that women had been arrested while in the country it's in the country reports as well but no one ever asked mr saying about that discrepancy and that's important because it's not at all clear what he said on this point if you look at page ninety three where it came up the testimony in the transcript is and your mother's never been arrested he said no no they don't they don't do arrest any of indiscernible they they can they will bodily abuse them it's not at all clear what he's even sayin no one ever followed up to ask him to clarify what he was saying and certainly no one ever asked him well is your testimony somehow inconsistent with these reports in the record next there is a discrepancy the only real discrepancy in the but again no one ever asked him about that discrepancy he was never given any opportunity to explain what i think let's take that one because we have what a witness say on one occasion he says my father was home on the other occasion my father was not home what the quantum one explanation would be to the prepare got it wrong and if you look at the time which is true basically right exactly and in this case if you look at the application it's a little strange because the font for the word home in the application is altogether different from the font on the rest of the application it's as if the word home was inserted at some point it's hard to know exactly what was going on there but there's something not quite issue about the judge says that you know mr singh was inconsistent in that he testified that he never returned home but in point of fact he had gotten a driver's license in that same district  basically he was in that district it's a district the size of rhode island that certainly doesn't mean he went home but the point that the immigration judge made was that mr saying explain no particular reason why he had a need for a driver's license let alone so drastic a need given an opportunity to explain and have the judge consider that explanation judge murray he doesn't agree with the ninth circuit's position on this but he still has to follow the law and as a result this case has to go back so this guy can get a hearing at which he can give  poor job here lot of things went wrong in this hearing for translation poor lawyer port transcription this is a case that really should go back to something that's probably never happened before i don't want this job for you  say here are all of the flaws in the proceeding right so you can either assume that it's testimony was credible or you can remain and it back down and let the record be real and given that choice the board our case law requires what he described is the answer yes or no the answer would be no in that circumstance why not i cannot speak for the immigration judge as to why he would not have asked a follow up question to material inconsistency in the asylum application here the question was my father present or not the witness petitioner must be confronted with the inconsistency and himself provided first said my father was home first said he was not home and then switched his testimony and quickly changed to say ok so you've now laid the foundation and go for job counsel prior inconsistent statement example to punish my father for his political views that seems to me to be the heart of his claim as to why he's entitled to asylum whether or not he held those beliefs or not if the police seem that the immigration judge did not ask proper follow up questions or did not analyze all the evidence in the record properly then the best course of action would be to remain the case back to the board with those specific  suggests that this story claimed that mr singh had regarded his arrest is not the way that the indian authorities arrest people it says that when a father is involved in political activity they will not just arrest the son discussed but within the documentary evidence had every reason to find this claim implausible that just mr singh would have been arrested and not his father when his father was in fact home as this court would know there was a discrepancy about i think that is one of the things that would explain the immigration judges finding that mr singh might have been implausible in stating that he wasn't politically active it was only just father that was politically active but in one thousand nine hundred ninety that's correct but in this instance the issue was asked about that and he provided an explanation correct here at the i j a address that explanation is the determination he provided two explanation the one explanation if the i j a addressed the petitioners the explanation alternative or not he failed to address the alternative explanation regarding the statement that it was a letter could have been a lesson that's correct addressed the issue regarding whether or not his father was too old and i was the that was what the immigration judge relied upon and again as i mentioned earlier if that is the case that this i thought is alternative explanation was then the second was because my father was too old that that's what took the record of it i mean that that's my understanding and and again if that if this court deems that to be the case that the immigration judge failed to look at that specific aspect failed to mention the province and what it said was that only three individuals were arrested following the assassination of mr singh and these three were militants so the issue is you know it's  look at these general country conditions statements and then find that they impeach the testimony of the witness as to his specific facts and i don't know any analogy in any other cases that we review where we're asked to do that i realize it's an administrative proceeding and you know a lot of hearsay and survived evidence as it is admitted but it just strikes me that it's hard to impeach anybody when you're using evidence that's just that is that general when when what our case law says is you just got to confront him and say you know how do you explain this that dutch think that only three in the whole state  know if it would be if the immigration judge would be able to rely on each specific part of you know a stack of of documents that was submitted to him before questioning the individual no a lot of these documents are submitted  this he could have responded because there are reports that show that as many as five thousand feet were arrested in the aftermath of the killing of beyond thing because the immigration judge never raised the issue he didn't know it was even in play he never had an opportunity to present that kind  evidence and that's the reason why you have to confront people with these alleged discrepancies not only gives them an opportunity respond gives an opportunity to present corroborating evidence on that point he didn't have that opportunity he didn't really have the hearings which is entitled that's for