implausible that mr singh would have reported his first incident of persecution to indian police but that he would not have told party leaders in his party about the attacks that he suffered  all of the immigration judges purported evidentiary bases bases for this is certain are not supported leaving this suggestion to be merely the immigration judge a speculation that someone in the petitioners position would have told others in his party about the attack in your position is that it would reasonable because he did not know these two individuals it would be reasonable that he did not tell right so the so the immigration judge you know tried to support this implausibility assertion by first saying that well of course he would have told the district party leader mr kashmiri because he had he knew mr kashmiri personally  and mr kashmiri was in touch with him with some quote with some regularity about his duties for the party in fact there was no personal relationship mr singh testified that mr kashmiri and he didn't know each gave no cogent reason why he would reported to police but not to his party members in fact he testified that he when he first went and reported to the police his hope was that they would arrest the congress party workers who had attacked him and that this show of support for his party and against the other party by police in authority and respect for his party that that of course wasn't successful the police refused to take the report  it would upset the balance of the party now tell me what he meant but i can't tell you what he meant by the mother can never get anybody else right but the ambiguity of the english phrase that the interpreter used in  was not the basis of the uyghurs decision where there are problems with translation there are some points when i was going through the record i noticed some points where you know there's things that in the transcript where there is sort of strange uses of phrasing and things that's not a basis for you know a basis for my argument for reversal here it seems like the translation as is often the case could have been better you know what he meant by the balance of the party i'm not entirely sure but he did elsewhere say you know specifically refer to didn't want to distract people who had an intention of joining the party and i think that makes pretty clear that he didn't want to dissuade people from joining and i think that that's an understandable reason  try to support this notion that it's implausible he wouldn't tell his party leadership by saying that well other people that other people in his village found the sarpanch the head of the village council found out and so it's not as if no one else from doubt so why wouldn't he tell the party leadership i just don't i don't think that's i don't think that's a supported by the record as a basis for the ages assertion because as explained in our brief you know the  someone who actually did know him and his family well found out about the attack from his family came to visit him and they spoke about it the fact that other people in his small village found out through his family  doesn't even and you know he didn't tell the sarpanch she didn't tell other people in his village but they found out through his family was something that had happened to someone in the village and i don't think that's any basis to doubt that he wouldn't have told people in the party  that it's implausible i think also has to fall away absent any support in the record for those supporting bases for it the next thing that i said was that pointed to this lack of references  hear about those things from mr singh himself i believe it was from us and they heard about of women's parents who said because he's been beaten twice we'd like you to write these letters so they wrote the letters but they didn't mention the beatings well  that letter from the head of the party you know i think it's very clearly a sort of form letter that mentions his involvement and then goes on and gives a lot of background information but you know i don't think there's any reason to  expect that someone at that much higher level of authority would you know have a basis or go into the details of of the past persecution incidents which would just be sort of hearsay from the parents or something anyway but the reason th letter is being sought is because this missing claims that he was beaten twice and would be persecuted if you went back i don't i don't think that's right and there's actually a good i can i can file a twenty a day on this but there's a good there have faulted a an applicant for the fact that a letter from his pastor that sort of certify that he had been baptized as a member of a particular church didn't refer to an incident of a rest of past persecution in that letter a sort of talking about his membership in the church i think here it's the same situation these letters are what they speak to is his membership in the party and his support for this political cause  neither of these party and that's certainly an element of part of his claim you know that it corroborates that part of his of his claim that he was a member of this party neither of these you know higher level party leaders had any kind of direct or even secondary secondhand knowledge of the attacks themselves and so there's no reason to expect that they would be able to speak to that or would speak to that one of the dress the contradictions  voting as the voting card you know again as explained in the in the briefs i don't think that there's a real inconsistency here between you know first he says there's this odd question was there a reason he didn't have a card he says no later on it gets into a much bigger discussion about why he says he didn't need a card to vote in two thousand and four and two thousand and five then says he needed a card and he couldn't vote and the congress party workers would a card so i don't think there's an inconsistency as to that either he first says they didn't ask for my card i was able to vote in two thousand for twenty two thousand five because they didn't ask for my card i think that's not inconsistent he never said that you'd never needed a car there is never a policy without a car and i think it's a queer think i said but i think it's a difference between you know he never said there is a policy there is a policy you don't need a card and that's why i was able to vote and then there was a policy that you don't need a card and that's why i times he was not able to vote when he didn't have a card are you saying the i j a misstated his testimony yeah i think misstated his testimony i don't think it's a fair reading of his testimony to say that he said you don't need a card like one doesn't need a card one didn't need a please the court victor lawrence on behalf of the attorney general this courtship denied his petition for review as the adverse credibility finding was properly rendered using the tally of the circumstances and it was supported by specific and cogent reasons my opponent suggested some areas where he didn't believe that the record fully supported the finding but that's not his burden the burden is to show that the record compels an adjudicator to come to a different conclusion than immigration judge or or or the board and we submit that the risk to the petitioner has not done that here and in addition we believe that all three of these factors were supported by substantial evidence and i too will address and i guess in the same order as this runs where is the evidence that somebody who is a party worker  would in normal manner report being to the party to the police that evidence is in the fact that this petitioner has the burden of proof to prove that he's a refugee to prove that he deserves asylum that he deserves political asylum in this case this is a case based on persecution as a result of his political opinions so he has to submit evidence to agency to show that the reason he was persecuted was because of his political opinions the normal way to do that is is to show show evidence from his party that he was involved but also that that he was persecuted as a result of his involvement well  well we're not saying there's a major premise but we're saying that this is a reason has to be other was that this is a reason why the immigration judge found his story implausible that he had that it's a natural thing particularly when he went back to find more the basis is because it's a claim of political asylum based on persecution let's look at the adverse i mean ability determination sure here i just i'm trying to follow you and it seems like you're conflating his burden to show his what he needs to show at this proceeding to get asylum or withholding and cancellation versus what we how we analyze an adverse credibility determination when we look at an adverse credibility determination we have to determine whether or not that i chase basis was supported by substantial evidence do you agree with that ye that's the question that we're looking at right now with respect to mr singh's testimony and his personal relationships that he allegedly had with mr customary the local man president it seems that the i j a may have mischaracterized that testimony because mr seeing seems that he testified he had no relationship with mr case mary and if mr singh did not know mr because mary personally why isn't it plausible that he would not tell him about the attacks and i think that's what  where is the proof that he would have told them about the attacks well because you know two or three times over a period of fourteen months i don't think develops a personal relationship like the i j a characterized but i think you know at page two to the record there's an indication that there was a recess where the parties discuss what would happen between the september fourth hearing and the next hearing and he said that he's going to get some additional evidence from mr kashmiri implying that there was a personal relationship or at least i asked for you did and how did he know you a not face to face it looks like there were some translation is issues and then mr singh testified that he never attended a party meeting and that m that he didn't have a purpose i mean what i'm taking is that he didn't have a personal relationship with him that he'd gotten somebody had given mr cause mary the the phone number for mr singh from party records lying or not credible in saying that he didn't report it to mr kenge mary well because i think in have to look at in the context of everything where he knows that the the i j knows that this was known by the of the city it was known by the police but and then also to consider the reason why he gave about that it would cause an uproar to the balance of his party and they're all but it doesn't make sense so to me i'm  trying to understand because then later the i j a says well he's faulting mr singh for for saying that his the evidence that he submitted don't corroborate each other i think when mr merry and men later submitted letters in support of singh's application for asylum they did not mention the attacks and so i think that's when the i j a faulted him and i'm just trying to figure out how i would because mary and man talk about the attacks if they didn't know about them and how do these two consistent pieces of evidence support an adverse credibility determination as judged by a pointed out and as the record reflects his parents went to talk to these individuals about needing additional evidence for their son's asylum hearing and told them about the fact that he was beat by the congress were party workers so it if i were in the position of a judge i would be confused why he said meeting these this additional evidence from these people who were told by his parents that he was beat and there's absolutely no mention or reference to it i grant you the fact that these individuals these party leaders did not have personal knowledge of it but they were informed of it by his parents yet decided  or wrote these letters found that the record through page three zero seven and thirty nine hundred forty eight which made absolutely no reference of the fact that he was persecuted and remember this claim is based on persecution i know but i'm  credibility determination on any relevant factor considered in light of the tally those circumstances can reasonably be said to have a bearing on petitioners veracity and he said in this case the fact that supporting documents from the party members omit mention he told the isn't that where mr singh's argument is that no you know being not inconsistent that the party members would not mention it because he was he did not know them personally but how do you square that your honor if i fail to ask a question how do you square that with the fact that his parents went to these leaders and said we need letters for our son who's requesting that it's not the i j said about the parents but that's not what the i j a says oh i find this odd because the parents have the parents have submitted now you know if i make show you your honor on page fifty four in the third paragraph it says despite his parents personal appeal to mr man the letter contains no specific information about the respondent besides his name and address it does not mention either attack so yes indeed the immigration judge does point out the fact that there was a personal appeal to mr mann and that he didn't mention that either attack and he doesn't provide substantial reason why his his parents had appealed to the president for help and yet neglected to ask mr kashmiri with whom yet he had yes he does call the person relationship but he had a relationship that's that's borne out by the record and he's been in contact with him a few times i just have a few seconds left i'd like to also point out why the notice the voter registration card is also key here because it's inconsistency as well and remember under the under the real idea as long as there's one inconsistency that that supported by the record that the court finds whether it's any of these three facts under the under jiang then the court should uphold the substantial uphold the credibility germination based on substantial evidence and here at page one thirty of the record respondent excuse me the petition clearly said that there was no reason he didn't have a card no reason but he was able to vote anyway then later at page one thirty five and one forty one to one forty two he changes that he says the government representatives did not want him to have a card and then when he asked immigration judge would said white why are you how do you square these two statements he just said it was a mistake now the judge the immigration judge doesn't have to find that to be a persuasive response that he says i made a asks so he's a member of the party asks that he be granted protection asylum in united states because he's in danger in india it's true that it does not mention either attack it doesn't go into that level of detail but it's not  e that it only gives his name and address it does you know it does refer to the basis of his claim that letter in particular so first of all there is no there is no testimony or evidence that his parents made any kind of similar appeal letter mr mann as to and there is very briefly as to argument that even if you know i think it seems pretty clear to me that implies ability granted and corroboration granted to the letters aren't supported i think you know perhaps the closest would be the voter issue i don't think that there is an inconsistency a real inconsistency between you know his you know saying no at first and then later speculating as to something that he couldn't possibly have known about but even if the court you know and i think importantly the i j a sort of acknowledged that was a minor inconsistency the court rather the government cites to this c in which an inconsistency had to go to the heart of the claim i think under and so i think and joining as we describe in the reply brief it really was that kind of really core inconsistency this court in at least a recent unpublish