good morning and may please the court and you a little more than a junior for the petitioner just piercing substantial evidence does not support the board's adverse credibility finding and thus this court must reverse the board's decision and re man for further consideration of mr singh's applications for relief counsel let me ask you about what the board said about his claims not to have been arrested in india they identify that as a a reason why he said his credibility credibility problems that your client has it is not sufficient your honor because the board did not consider mr seeings reasonable explanation as to why he made those misrepresentation what you did consider that i mean the i j a found that he was not truthful about how the interview was conducted he said it was in spanish in the i j a found in the board seems to have accepted the idea that he was using that as a cover up for not having told the truth well first truth nowhere in the b o h decision does the board consider that explanation but also in addition the court mentioned c b p a sworn statement at the border and also with the testimony of officer  but those two things do not undermine mr singh's testimony because mr seeing mr singh's testimony that he was interviewed in spanish and did not understand everything that he was asked is supported by the record no that's redoubt was rejected by i j specifically found that the agent's testimony is more reliable than your clients and that's a that's a credibility finding and how do we get around the credibility finding when we get around that your honor because the immigration judge and the board did not consider the entire record and we know that they say they consider the entire record i mean you keep making these statements that they didn't consider the entire i read the entire record it's like this all right and the bia is opinion is a couple pages the i g is opinion is a lot more lengthy but they say that they considered everything well we know they didn't consider everything your honor because in the record on for my two thirteen officer crna himself made a contempt that is a contemporaneous record where he specifically stated that he conducted that interview in contradict what the i j a and the b i said about his statements to the to the border patrol officer how can we do that that's not what we're requesting your honor we're requesting that the court reversed i gess decision because it's not supported by substantial evidence in that the i j nor the board grappled at all with the form i two thirteen which specifically contradicts officer certain us testimony and i ate six seven and you know i had to keep interrupting you but these are things that the i j a grappled with and the b i s's said we file of the reader a case and if you look at the read or case they say we're not supposed to redo findings of fact we're supposed to look at i j a its findings for clear air and they say and we don't find any and so the problem i'm having with your argument is you're asking us to start over as an initial court to make these credibility decisions which we're not supposed to be making your honor i would disagree that that is what the petitioner is asking in this case we are asking that when there are specific contradicting evidence as to testimony which the judge credited as opposed to the petitioners the b i a and the immigration judge at a minimum has to grapple with that contradicting evidence only they did not sa they say they did it does not say that they did your or your honor no where is the i two thirteen mentioned we decide almost probably over seventy five percent of our cases with two page documents called memoranda disposition and we don't go back and redo every little jet and tittle of whatever was done down below and we say that all the time and so when the b i a says that they find that the i g s correction i g s decision is free of  air isn't that saying that the contentions that were made or have been dismissed is not substantial no your honor here i ate did not affirm under matter of vrba no thus we look at the b o h decision as to the reasons why the adverse clear and they say we don't find any your honor specifically addressed five reasons here and one of them was the misrepresentations at the border however this court must remain and because in lie on that specific issue this court made clear that when the b i a is going to find an inconsistency they have to consider the respondents explanation on that point the b i a did not do so because it did not mention and neither did the i j a the high to thirteen which directly contradicts officer service testimony would you agree that the i j a considered every one of your clients explanations no your honor the i j a did i'm  e the record for the next ten minutes while your you went through that and he said i was nervous this was in spanish you consider all of those things for page after page after page v i j did not consider the form my two thirteen which time that i am in front of him yes well excuse me yes it is in the record your honor it is that and how can you say of her how can you say that she didn't consider it because it specifically contradicted officer testimony and at the very least in that contradiction the immigration judge should have grappled with that and how that didn't undermine officer sternest test she did and she said the interview was conducted entirely in jab b and your client lied to the sea to the california is all he admitted and how it whether he came or came here or not to work your he also said he had pretty had the proof of his party membership and it turns out that was a letter that was written after he said he had it your honor the court is talking about two separate things the misrepresentations about his date of birth his name and the way he travelled here is one issue not the court before that specifically said that the i j found that the interview was conducted entirely in spanish and that is specific that is a separate issue and it is specifically contradicted in the record by the four my two thirteen which officer crna specifically prepared and it contradicts his own testimony and that it was made by the i j a in the i j a except that his testimony that it was entire and conducted entirely and the petitioner respectfully disagrees that the immigration judge considered that the document because the i j did no way grappled with a direct conflicting statement to officer certain us at the very least the immigration judge in the board should have done that it did not do that in this case now the five reasons for the adverse credibility finding are not supported by the record thus the court then moves on to the a violated mr singh's due process rights by both felt him to consider mr singh's explanations for his in the billeted to provide the requested documents and by citing documents which lacked detail when the i j did not inform mr singh that the documents provided were insufficient or give him an opportunity to obtain a document that satisfied her as this court requires and watch for i in the decision that the court decided last year you can see the credibility finding stands that irrelevant that is correct your honor but substantial evidence does not support the cooperation and i reserve the rest of my time for rebuttal thank you again i think you will hear from the government was given his advisors and spanish it doesn't say anything about the entire interview i turned to the record so if you need the page number later i could provide that for you i have it here ok with regard to the admissions to the extent that even one of the other arguments he raises that lack of detail should not be held against him in terms of his omission of the address i would argue that in this particular case his admission was not a failure to include a detail his admission was actually   i found the board's handling of the cooperation of morning we see a lot of cases out of the punjab and a lot of cases recites that people pay bribes to get out of jail i've never seen  any requirement in another case and maybe you can correct me that they required a bank statement as proof of showing a bribe that is unusual that they would require a bank statement but in this particular case  mean i you paid a bribe and usually you are going to write a check but you would have some evidence of how where your money or your finances may have come from i mean i mean i just have never seen the board require proof of a bribe and requiring cooperation i mean usually bribes are conducted in the in the publics sector you know keep records of the bribes that's true but in this particular record the immigration judge was concerned with reports that the apartment of homeland security submitted that show that there was a problem with fries and in fact it's coming out in india if you look at it right there but that was that was but that was why there was the bank record requirement would have come i mean extensive but there was no documented issue there i mean that was that he was asking for an additional document as proof i'm just curious because i just we have thousands of cases out of india and thousands of men that we get on the circuit and i've never seen a trying to substantiate the fact that all of his evidence actually post dated his arrival in the united states because the immigration judge more concerned about the authenticity of the documents that he was providing pens t didn't require him to do that which i just said is that he could use his attorney that he did in fact hire to actually file complaints and india to pursue his arrest record and there was no explanation for why no arrest record was actually provided but you know again i just haven't seen that work armont in the types of cases coming out of india and as i recall they generally don't keep all the rest records in the kind of detail way that we did in the united states particular in the point and  that's true i haven't either but i would suspect that the reason why they did it is because of the volume of records that petitioner did actually submit to support his claim and i guess trying to find a reason or explanation of why this records failed to actually cooperate is claim he looks for more specific documentation and again like i said because there was no contemporaneous evidence of any of the events that actually took place the immigration judge kind of went a little bit more aggressive i think on trying to find documents that would corroborate his claim there was some suggestion that the identity card was a was a forgery and the government said we're going to follow up on this and then nothing happened is there any explanation the record why nothing happened to prove it was a forgery and that to my knowledge degree where we had the board actually lied on the immigration judges determination about the foundation of their membership card the board has kind of adopted digests position on why that card i very reliable and that you must look at them in the entire context of the case not a lot that's true however in this particular case it's not quite the same scenario as an airport interview this is a record  statement the records are statement correct provides a more reliable summary of the of the events that occurred that day and the reason why i say that is because well is the border patrol interview with everett is that initial interview where people who  first question that you were asking in terms of not relying on persons who come into the country that is true the core does not give a lot of credence to some of the interviews that happened upon entry because because of that very fa people may be traumatized however that those concerns in this case where alleviated by the fact that this was actually conducted by the c p a off it was the regular sworn statement but titian was asked over and over again whether or not he understood the questions that were being asked of him he doesn't refute that any of the questions or any of the other answers and his in this one statement are incorrect other than the one saying that he did or did not did you come directly here from india you know he came from chile allegedly how many years did you spend in south america before you've been shown up here three to five years he said it has a weird spyder record to look at and in terms of the spanish speaking at a time of advisers that would have been normal and i was that was any immigration case you're not going to be able to produce live witnesses from foreign countries and to the united states and many of us cases relies on affidavits to submit to i j s we've had cases i saw one was judge in the formal indian language the immigration judge thought it would be more helpful had the affidavits came in with some certification at the affiance actually even understood english because even  campaigned which was not correct you name a couple of candidates he said being highly involved he made it he only voted in one election and he explained under examination a great detail many times candidate when he named true well when he didn't name the two candidates that he named he couldn't even identify where their districts were and one of them is allegedly his friend any other person that he actually named as a person he voted for didn't even appear on a voter roll that the d h s had provided although i'm clearly aware that opposing counsel had addressed this particular issue in his brief when he said that something was making a distinction between the law something local or general election he actually missed the documents that had to do with the l a legislative assembly that chance so there was not only just the records for the local elections but there also was in the record the records for the a election that he claims that he had voted in and the person he did name baljinder singh's name did not appear on those records but you'd have to admit that when the b i said cited his inability to name a single candidate thank you your honors first off addressing by two three were thirteen in the i six seven officer cernan this is that administrative record six twenty seven six twenty six in the transcript he was specifically asked and he testified that he did not go through the i six seven until after the interpreter was on the line and that is simply not correct because the i two thirteen which he prepared says that he went through as even as the government suggests the jurat in the spanish language so that is a clear contradiction in the dition i was the attorney down at the trial court and administrative record six fifty i did submit a request for criminal records to the punjab police which was not responded  very much thank you counsel the case just argued be submitted for decision