next case on the calendar thing versus s evidence part yes now the corroborating evidence this arose in the context of providing a letter from he's a christian he's alleging that he was persecuted in china based on his religious belief the immigration judge then ses at the hearing like oh what is your religious practice here in the united states and he said well i haven't gone to church in quite a while the judge says well what happened well unfortunately i didn't get a work permit so in order to sustain myself i've not had the opportunity to go to church because i stand on a street corner in chinatown and i look for work all the employers are not willing to employ me because i don't have a work permit so i understood th more than four days notice is that zachary that's correct and this is in the same context because if he had gone to church he would have had the letter prior to that date in question so finally when he does make amends and does to start to attend church it's then the court of the church says well i will give you the letter so in that context he explains to the judge and say as well this is what the church said they would not give me the letter and even when they're willing to give me a letter  regular basis and this was because he didn't have a means of livelihood and he had to basically stand in a corner and solicit for work in order to support himself was the i j a entirely wrong in thinking that his commitment to christianity was not all that deep well where the judge could has every right to say that there just have it has every right to say that but an individual's choice is li cannot be the base that's cannot be the basis for making an adverse credibility finding he made bad choices so he didn't attend church where he says i'm a christian he didn't attend church but he gave a plausible reason why he didn't attend church so i didn't go to church does application states who are police officers broke into the house with the tongs and we were all taken to the local police station but at the hearing the testimony was that some of the  churchgoers skate and only three were arrested your brief quotes the application but doesn't reconcile the statements yes now at page one seventy six of the record and which which is what you quoted from your honor he saves now we we are having we were having our normal prayer and sharing church members stories and then going down for they said we were all taken now when these things are written they don't lend themselves to completeness the court has read the court the second circuit was already decided that at all times these things in puzzle over these things don't mean the lend themselves to completeness in this situation here it was when we got to the testimony that this record was developed and then he explained that there were eight people i asked him i said how many people were there he said there were eight and i said did anybody ask a pin he said no he said i'll take that back he said yes that i was standing near the door and some people were managed to flee and those of us that were left were taken away by the police and that was his testimony and that taken as a whole it doesn't it doesn't diminish from his statement here your honor it does not in any way now you've got a section of your brief on the convention against torture waived that challenge in its core no you're right the reason why is because the same standards that apply to asylum also apply to the convention against torture and withholding of removal so if the respondent has been found credible for asylum and withholding of them the board an immigration judge cited to several factors in making the adverse credibility determination including a lack of details in describing his alleged persecution inconsistency between his credible fear interview the asylum statement and his hearing testimony regarding the severity of the treatment he allegedly endured a lack of interest in parts practicing his religion in the united states which casts doubt on whether he's a practicing christian in accurate background information in his application and a lot of reasonably available let's let's go if we could to the the argument that the reliance on the credible fear interview  characterized as as sketchy moreover let me just finish and you'll have all the time you need the immigration officer didn't probe the details relied upon by  fifteen we'll see that mr lynn was represented by counsel during the credible fear interview it was an interpreter was present and therefore it was in his native language at no point did he indicate that he didn't understand the questions being posed to him or the significance of this interview the interview while the asylum officer made notes on page two or seven there is a verb transcript of the questions and responses given during the interview and you can see that on pages two or nine to two fifteen the immigration judges issue with the credible fear interview and also with mr lynn's testimony during the hearing removal hearing was his lack of detail he he didn't seem to want to divulge any additional details he provided curt responses and this is apparent during his hearing testimony before the immigration judge on direct examination his attorney asked him can you describe the ten days you were allegedly detained mr lindh responded i i was locked in a dark room his attorney didn't press any further on cross examination government counsel pressed further and asked what happened what happened during these ten days you were detained mr lynn responded and if you'd like to see this is on page one twelve of the record mr lindh responded i thought and prayed the government counsel asked him again what can you describe to us what happened during those ten days can you describe a typical day for us from day from morning till night there was simply a long pause mr fang mr lynn pause for a long time as the immigration judge in new did that pause and after that mr lindh did not provide any further details as to what happened during those ten days  that relied on a missions right like the fact that when one was detained by trying authorities he was beaten handcuffed and then beaten further and had his officer doing the credible fear interview he said that it was slapped in my mouth or my face in his asylum statement he said slapped and his face was bleeding and his hearing testimony before the immigration judge not the same story he told with minor detail changes the severity changed and one could not determine whether one has been persecuted with a consistent description of what has happened but this is just one one of the discrepancies that the immigration judge and the boys relied upon there were so many other factors that went into this adverse credibility determination and as i stated before there was a lot of detail in him describing his detain ment there was a lot of interest in him practicing his religion here in the united states there was inaccurate background information in his asylum application regarding his employment in china as well his address here in the united states and all of this with coupled with a lack of reasonably available cooperation he didn't corroborate from anyone in china his parents this past years other there were no doubt that his family had to pay five thousand r and b s to get him out of he could have either provided a receipt if there was one he could have gotten a letter from his parents stating the circumstances of his relief none of that was presented now let me ask you if i could about you mention church infrequently and the i j a seems to believe that the i j a can make a determination as to how much church attendance makes one a christian archer on comfortable with th the judge the immigration judge nor the board was stating that in fact if we look at page forty nine of the immigration judge's decision he states that the absence of church attendance along with the absence of any explanation of the respondent has taken p christian activities outside an organized church which is possible would be inconsistent with the idea that he's a practicing christian so i can't you practice your religion at home right exactly and i mean in terms of formal practice or anything else i mean how somebody chooses to exercise his or her first amendment rights with respect to religious observation is not something that we typically delve into yet and not ask him about his doctrinal knowledge he was just looking to see his interest in practicing his religion and he didn't as i the sentence shows from the immigration judge's decision there's a similar sentence in the board's decision they weren't looking simply at church attendance they were looking to see whether he was pattison his religion in any other way and would how would that be shown practicing a home reading the bible going together with other members of the church during a time that might be convenient for him if the services weren't at  time that he could attend but none of that was shown either in his hearing testimony his appeal brief that was simply was not shown and given that his whole clean centered on the fact  his own testimony because he attended this underground church which they believed to be some sort of underground cult that was plotting against the government and so they were interested in just in his attendance at this underground church now  was going to this underground church so i'm going to his own testimony so if somebody would say leave the country because he or she is a practicing christian practicing whatever religion that is  is viewed with disfavor by that country comes to this country decides you know on reflection i am no longer a christian then that's a basis for removal is that your view it would undermine their fear of removal because they can go back to their country without since they were announced their religion as if their basis for their fear is that they cannot practice their religion without being persecuted and if there are no wrong or practicing their religion then they don't have a basis for fear future persecution in all the tally of the circumstances here show that the seriousness but in actual fact there really isn't much difference if you take a comparison and look at the page two hundred three of the the record on page one seventy six one seventy six he says the police officer did not let me finish my words and slap me looking at it from from its brevity it was only meant to well let's quickly do this and does he does it qualify for a sound so we can you know leave him in attention so he can go to an immigration judge it never really went to are you why are you really applying for handcuffs to the judge and develop the record to say were you ever handcuffed when when you were detained where you had called at the police station no the judge but then the judge says well he says i was handcuffed he's in a police station the judge didn't ask from the very hearing and we're three hours into this hearing and all sorts of things come out he must have written the credible fear interview must have been half an hour and to tell you the truth that he didn't have an attorney present the  treated by the police and this was based on his religious beliefs whether he practices religion the way he would we want him to practice it here that's rather you know whether he wears his religion on his sleeve that right to do but just because he doesn't do that doesn't mean he has no fear of going back to china based on his religion and it's my belief that the respondent has carried his burden and the court should remand this back to the