good morning everyone morning morning no courthouses or ok all right let's start all over again ok great mr came to united states twenty two years old without her family and with limited education hoping to escape persecution suffered at the hands of the chinese government in may of two thousand and ten chinese officials broke into her home detained her for several days beat her until she fell unconscious and forced her to sign a statement promising to give up her question upon release her family fearing for her life arranged for smugglers to bring her to united states four years later mr jenner had the opportunity to testify through an interpreter regarding her experiences in china before niger the i j a recognized that this type of persecution would typically plan to focus my argument on them but given the limited amount of time if there's anything the court would like me to focus on now and why do we only focus on the three ok of the adverse credibility terminations may both by the age and the be why don't we look at the full picture thank you for clarifying i think is very clear on this point that the court reviews only the clearly notes that you only look at the i just decision as to the reasons that the fight is most significant because we don't want the court to assume which reasons the b i was relying upon and which reasons it wasn't and i think here there is no up on tackle and reaffirmed the same holding that we only look to the reasons that are specifically identified by the way and so i think that this is not a controversial standard i think it's been articulated several times by this circuit and even if some stray use of the phrase for example were enough to signal a wholesale adoption in some eighty three in the administrative record during her testimony at the merits hearing the i j a questioned jan on whether she was doing anything else during her time in china and initially did not say that she was attending a cooking school but when the i j a followed up she said yes yes i was attending a cooking school the reason why i didn't offer this initially was because i thought you were referring to academic study when you asked me if i was studying anything in her oral decision the i j a never addressed that explanation and she never addressed it at the merits hearing either she never said oh that's not a reasonable explanation for this reason or that reason and this circuit requires that the i j a give a specific and cogent reason for rejecting the petitioner's reasonable explanation  again the government has conceded this point on appeal that there was no reason given for rejecting this reasonable explanation so i think that that reason is out and i think that all that leaves are the inconsistency is related to the administrative penalty decision specifically a one day date discrepancy regarding the date of john's arrest and then a trivial inconsistency regarding the location of her image question even the governments can see that point if i don't agree with the government can i still consider that implication but your honor i don't think she anywhere notes the explanation and her in her decision and i think that the circuit's law says there has to be a specific and cogent reason for it and and so as you just said maybe it  wasn't specific as we might like i think that's enough to remain for at least clarification on this point from the i g because she never addressed it in her opinion well look at the opinion she describes st of all the cooking school in the fact of the inconsistency in concluding paragraph  however she indicated she had forgotten to mention she forgot to mention anything about the cooking school during her testimony in this court until she was specifically asked about it and that doesn't imply that there was real concern about that when i say that no you had to because that misstates the position  testimony she didn't say she forgot about the cooking school what she said was that i thought you were asking me about academic study not vocational study or not a hobby and the i j never addressed that specific explanation yes the morgan case thank you that's the case the government relies on for this principle i don't believe it stands for that what morgan said is that the b i appeared to adopt the i j s decision and it did so because not only in that case  i give examples from the ideas opinion but it also spoke as though the adverse credibility determination was quote controlling into nine the applicant's motion for remand so i think that case is clearly not what we have here is the  never spoke as though the i j s decision was controlling it said for example and it listed a few reasons but the use of the phrase for example could mean anything it could mean that here are a few reasons and i am reserving more or it could be an exhaustive list and the only way that we can know if it's an exhaustive list or not is by making assumptions about what the the i am meant to do with the use of that phrase and this court has repeatedly held that where the b a s decision is vague we shouldn't assume i'd also return to the point i made before your honor credibility and that's on the address was the i'm required to accept the explanation and to the discrepancy in the andrus no your honor the idea was not but the i didn't signal whether she did or she explain that one day date discrepancy so the court said you offered a reasonable explanation for this and i'm not going to reject it but it doesn't deal with this one day date this bill yet what did that have to say about the b i a i was entirely vague about this issue it did not address john's explanation for it at all and again this returns to the point that i made earlier that this court has repeatedly held that you have to provide a specific and cogent reason for rejecting the petitioners explanation and hearing no one provided a reason for other things i don't have to deal with that that's how i interpret i think that's a reasonable reading your honor but again that's not a specific reason for rejecting the explanation it just says look there's other things i can focus on and so if that's the reason this court now wants to rely on to affirm i think that would be improper and the petitioners testimony in light of the totality of the circumstances the board then reviewed the immigration judge's decision for clear this court reviews that determination plus the record as a whole including the immigration judge's decision under the deferential standard of substantial evidence this court is entirely correct in that the immigration judge repeatedly referred to other inconsistency throughout record the board then looked to the totality of immigration judges decision what's different in this case versus is that the immigration george i'm sorry the board appeared to adopt the entirety of the decision what the board actually is that good enough to appear to adopt the entirety of the session aren't we limited to the decisions or the adverse credibility determinations that are specifically articulated by the board but is sure your honor however i would state that the this court over the last will look at the entirety of the record in reviewing that so even if st the government's position is not that the one issue or the issues are only limited to the part the opinion because this case as was and more again the board generally affirms the immigration judge's decision then lists for example a few reasons for doing so and then does that throughout the decision ok also how do we deal then with the language and law intently that says a reviewing court looks soley to  board's decision in those cases are different because they include limiting language that's not present in this case the title decision limiting language isn't technically that you think is not present in this case the title decision stated most significantly which implies that there are certain issues that were in the board's decision or i'm sorry that were in the immigration judge's decision that the board didn't rely on that's not the case here we have simply had a general statement affirming that immigration judges adverse credibility determination and then go on to list examples of why taken from the immigration judge's decision however even if this court were inclined to find that controls here we still have to look at the e in the context of adverse credibility what case do you cite for the proposition that we look at the totality of the circumstances when determining whether or not the adverse credibility determination is supported b your honor i would still state that morgan controls in this case states that the petitioner was arrested on may st two thousand and ten petitioner testified that she was arrested st on me may nd two thousand and ten and then her attorney noted the difference in in her testimony and said oh well actually your honor i apologize i missed it that she st stated that she was arrested in two thousand and nine then her attorney noting the discrepancy stated that she was arrested in two thousand  and after noting about their friends petitioner instead of accepting that and stating oh yes i mean a mistake she actually challenged her attorney and stated where does the statement that she provided say two thousand and ten and then her attorney showed her her own declaration and that there are and that is that the point that she admitted that her testimony was incorrect and she had made some sort of in addition the address difference is that issue here regarding that and when should a penalty decision so there was a park street park street petitioner never testified that she lived on park street she provided a different address in her application and then only on cross examination was she as well what why does that mean should a penalty decision conflict with your state your application in she admittedly speculated that maybe the police gave that excuse or response to opposing counsel stop savation that the immigration judge said she might be inclined to accept the nation well your honor i think it's one thing to say that she might be inclined to accept explanation but that doesn't mean that she did and she that as then she might be inclined to accept that explanation of the address but for the date discrepancy i don't it's appears that the i j a was combining them for an adverse credibility determination your honor grew with that but i would also say that the immigration judge repeatedly referred to the remainder of the record saying i agree that perhaps this explanation could be plausible but in the t circumstances or in relation to all the other inconsistency in the record and this is a record that had petitioner testifying repeatedly as to incorrect as to when she entered the united states when she was arrested she testified in consistently with her documentary evidence that she provided and instead of confronting those inconsistencies affirmatively then she gave some examples of why may not suffice i would agree with you counsel if the i j a had relied on those in consistencies but the i j did not rely on those inconsistent inconsistency specifically in the did the board turn for the record we're talking about two different addresses here we talk about the park street inconsistency they were talking about living in massachusetts an address for eight months and not knowing that address yes your honor but that that was not that was not cited as a basis for the emperor's credibility term going to net but i thought framed it was that it was essentially a plausible explanation for the song for the park for the artwork yes yes but in conjunction with the state and in light of all the other inconsistency is present in the record in addition petitioner in this case failed to corroborate those moments where she did having consistencies and in light of her incredible testimony the petitioner here was not entitled to notice that's another portion of the petitioners argument is that she was entitled to notice of corp however it's the government's position that she was never intended to notice even if she were it's the government's position that she was given ample notice because the one year bar came at issue at the inception of the case also you cited to morgan is your strongest case to support the proposition that we look at the entire record when determining and it burst credibility determination so tell me the language in morgan specifically that you're relying upon the issue in morgan was the st tell me the language and then you can explain why you're relying on that language ok or if i have just one moment honor it's it's the language about how the board's decision appears to adopt immigration judge's decision that we have that in this case that the board adopted the i j s f here is a is the in morgan says there is an ambiguity because of the b b s a decision appears to adopt the immigration judges credibility germination and the opinion do we have that here your honor i would say that we do because we have a  blanket affirmation of the conclusion by the immigration judge we affirm the immigration judge is our st credibility germination and then the board goes on to state for example and then gives a few reasons out of the many reasons that were cited by the immigration generally when we see the adoption of the i g opinion is done explicitly the board routinely adopts the i j decision isn't it curious that that wasn't done here yet you're arguing that the the i understand and i hate to say my experience because i know that doesn't compare however the board is very explicit in its decisions as to what issues that it discards and what issues that it adopts in this case the board didn't and attached our i apologize reviewed next this finding based on the board's general adoption or affirmation of the for points your honor number one the reasons that were adopted by the b i a are not within the scope of this review i think that's clear from technically and lay i think the morgan case is easily distinguishable and i have reviewed every case that cited morgan and there is no case in the circuit that i have seen that has allowed the adoption wholesale of an i j opinion based on nothing more than the use of the phrase for example number two dealing specifically with the issue that judge hawke raised the addressed discrepancies the i j a accepted gins explanation for the massachusetts address discrepancy on page eighty three of the administrative record and then she also appeared to accept explanation call it conditional your honor i think i would say that i'm conditional and so i listen unconditionally no no i think it was just look i think that this could be a reasonable explanation so i'm going to focus on other things it sounds conditional because she said i thought  if it weren't for these other discrepancies i might i might find that plausible yeah exactly so she may or may not we don't know and that's why again i think raymond is the appropriate course here we just don't know what the i g would have done or wouldn't have  done the government cites the only man i guess everything's in play again and you start from scratch you can remain an open record your honor yes i believe so the government cites the one day discrepancy as its strongest discrepancy in this case and in doing so it tries to sneak in the two thousand and nine versus two thousand and ten discrepancy that the ira never raised that and it's the session not once so i don't think jen's inconsistent momentary inconsistency regarding whether these events occurred in two million one hundred and two thousand and ten is currently before the court the only date discrepancy that is the one day date discrepancy and this is inherently trivial if the court needs to realize why it is so it lee in need look no further than the b i is the city in itself on the rd paragraph of the b i's decision