honor my name is seven maria representing the petitioner this morning may i please the court we have something of an unusual taste if you in this instance let me say so every case only some of the lawyers are and well i mean you know you let me try to characterize this case as something about hybrid where the boardroom gratian appeals takes the on usual step first just accepting and confirming the decision of the immigration judge and then it puts itself i thought i would like to address each of the reasons that the b i h cited i have very very interesting reasons but the first reason that the is a discrepancy between the address which was well let me preface that by saying i criticize lou for providing inconsistent addresses for a woman there was a witness statement that was sent and then followed up that had an address on it and then the witness also provided an i d card supporting you know identifying the witness what the b i hate didn't point and for them to say there's a credibility problem because those two different addresses i mean you know that's pure speculation to assume that this witness hasn't moved you know it isn't it isn't a living and something new location or with some new family i mean it's just such a disconnect that to use this as a reason to question the petitioner credibility just makes no sense whatsoever let me let me ask the question because i i am i i am a visitor and i don't i don't do these immigration cases to the extent that my colle not persuasive but i have a hard time accepting the proposition to the extent they say anything beyond the word affirm or whatever they are erasing which states which stands for that proposition that court dealt with the i j a issues there was a seven month delay from the time they found out the the that their removal hearing it occurred before they happy you didn't deal with it in your briefing with with all with the with the multitude of reasons that the i j a cited for lack of credibility you tended to focus on the for that to be i e and i i'm trying to come to grips with immigration jurisprudence if you will surely your honor and you're absolutely correct in deference to the comment by the your honor that we you know because adopted the immigration judge's findings and then add an added their own but if you take a careful look at the immigration judge's findings which was done very completely in the the  in the response that was filed with the b i and the appeal that was filed with the in the green in reviewing the immigration judge's findings each and every one of them are absolute speculation and there's and i can go through the list it would it would take all of my time to do so but every one of them are nothing but pure speculation there is not one fact that substantiated by hand things factual at all they're all speculation that the you know the person would have no trouble leaving china speculation as to why the person didn't apply in japan well you know of twenty four hours and didn't even speak japanese but for the immigration judge to find that this is a breeze and to doubt his credibility the fact that he didn't apply in japan also reached the conclusion that the documents were more likely than not purchased and they were fraudulent from the get go and that and that she perhaps rely improperly on the fact that he admitted that he had purchased the initial document that got him out of the country  was purchased on the market in china these documents apparently are available on there's no question about the fact that these people if they're being if they're being persecuted in china are going use any means available and often do i mean it's very similar that they do but but the thing that's interesting that you point out is that the the immigration judge has absolutely no basis other than speculation for deceive the court in that regard but to impute that because that document was fraudulent that his other documents supporting him his case is fraudulent is impermissible and that's a lie and that's why i suggested that they price she probably did that improperly however can she not then go through the documents that were presented to her and note the various and consistencies and dates and more importantly perhaps the inconsistency in terms of the description  status in the various in the various i mean i tried to wrestle with well he was a worker in one thousand nine hundred eighty eight in one thousand sixty nine to seventy eight and then he was in charge of molding and then he became the factory president but there were other documents later that said during the same time he was president he was he was something less and i understand in a society that is prides itself on being totally a gala terry and perhaps there's some explanation but but it seemed to me that there were significant discrepancies about his leadership role in this factory which probably does go to the heart of why he was persecuted because if you weren't a leader he would have been able to use the factory for these falun gong activities and so forth and so on well not only that your honor but but if there are blatant discrepancies in the document that is going to create an obvious credibility gap he's not going to submit these documents to support to support his statement the fact that he does submit these documents you know gives him own opinion actually it's kind of that and it is unusual for us to issue its own opinion in this way i mean normally we would just see a summary of firmaments or are they all say we adopt and firm and they cite a particular case which i can't recall right now that didn't do that here so is that a routine requirement now nobody thinks based upon his very best face on a friday that documents and other issues that he had when possibilities with a petition or case he asked for some type of crime bring evidence and this was not a difficult piece of evidence to bring spank their reasons for making a decision by using the word we note that doesn't even that's not even a word that has an echo for supporting decision in regard to the immigration judges comment that he failed to go you know that there were so many people in the park he actually testified specifically to the immigration judge in regard to that he said the reason i said i started to do that but the reason i didn't continue was because i had to walk forty minutes to reach the park and a round trip would take me an hour and a half and that's why he said he just didn't find the time to go to that park challenge i would have suggested that he do that i agree with that comment and i you know although i would also add that that the court can't use that as a you know they can't say because you didn't do