relief was iranians and that the petitioner did in fact submit sufficient documentation as well as credible testimony to establish that his membership in the johnson party or the p was a cause for him suffering persecution in india he only supported the party due to his low case cast as a hindu and he credibly established in both the brief before the board and before the score and argued that any incredibility finding was iranian and then it's no example but but the biggest problem and seem to me from the i j just talked about demeanor this is this is post real i d act right right ok so shocked about demeanor and she talked about evasiveness but it seemed to me the biggest problem she had was the implausibility of the overall story about these two warring factions that's  that's my word but what about that what about the implausibility i think she gave him more time to get to get our operating information that was not forthcoming it was not submitted in the lower court that is true however we argue that the petition is credible testimony and his supporting documents such as the letter about ninety minutes but in order to say he had credible testimony you have to tell me why she was she wrongly found him incredible so arbat back to the same circle part of the reason why she found him that he had as with a strange phraseology and sufficiently proved himself credible was because there was no background support for the basic story so we're back to the same place again but we argue that she should have looked at his testimony and the supporting documents that he did preside such as contained in exhibit five the letter from his political party the affidavits nothing in criticized the petitioner right was that he didn't provide corroboration apparently available cooperation for some important factors right she was looking for some sort only if it was reported on your honor so apparently it wasn't reported on as petitioner was an l l c producer did he say that he you know he did a google search or something like that and whatever it where were they doing that part of india and then there was no corroborating or adverse documentation either way i believe his attorney and before the immigration judge asked for a continuance to find that documentation and was not able to produce it and submitted i don't think there was  testimony with an explanation as to why now counsel you just referred to a letter from the party was that submitted first of all can you give me that your cite for that i want to make sure we're talking about the same document it's a bit five and it's a letter from the party tell you what my next question when you find it is was that submitted before or after the continuance i will tell you and here while i'm looking for it i want to point the court's attention to the background jackman titian that was submitted such as in exhibit six where several human rights reports show that the police and gage and partisan policing and will attack members of oppositional political parties that the b has to whichever party is in power that is on page three three four of a car and now i'm approaching and told or threatened by them to leave his party as well though no one had considered that and fail to acknowledge that in rendering a decision of the level of the i j a on the board  so the letter there are letters that were submitted after five eighty nine was submitted exhibit five was submitted april twenty second two thousand and thirteen is that what you mean yes and three a two now the affidavit of three one was written by a person who says that he was actually the district general secretary of the party right is that and i'm just trying to get you to if you can help me out that the for the for the negative credibility determination my understanding is that it was most impressed that the overall story about these two parties was about the friction between them was implausible was the word she used so i'm trying to figure out and she gave a continuance to get her operating evidence of that fact and so what do you want us to look at is it these affidavits i do want to was being persecuted or attacked but as we argue in our brief this court has found a numerous occasions in relation to omissions in a department of state report that the government usually is the one to submit that not every incident is always mentioned in such a report and the omission of certain incidents cannot definitively be a basis to make an incredibility finding or find  event did not occur just because it's not discussed in the department of state report that was in our brief and similarly the core issues the same sort of reasoning here in this case that the petitioner was unable to find documented  articles about the conflict between two parties but that might also be because it wasn't reported on doesn't mean it didn't exist all safe the remaining then thank  good morning your honour's my name is ashley martin and i represent the respondent in this matter your honour's section eleven fifty eight b one b is clear that an asylum applicant can meet his burden and one of two ways number one he can provide credible persuasive testimony that refers to specific facts demonstrating refugee status or the applicant can provide credible testimony and combination with corroborative evidence here the petitioner provided neither and for that reason the court should deny the petition the agency referred to a number of problems with the petitioners testimony in this case there's the  largest problem which was implausibility that you would have someone who is admittedly a low level member of the bar who chanson party or the b s p repeatedly being targeted for attacks by the was a member of the party as a was it seemed to me immaterial that he was a low level member of the party of the parties were incompetent well that would require that the parties be in conflict to such an extent that low level members this is a different point as well and one point is if it's impossible that he would be attacked because he's a low level member of the party that sort of one issue but the second the second issue seems to me to be more fundamental is it your position that she found that it was implausible but t parties were in conflict or just that he would have been a subject of an attack because of it because he was a low level member of the party the immigration judge found an impossibility that he would be repeatedly attacked as a low level member of the party the immigration judge did not and nobody would notice i mean as it would be you wouldn't the wouldn't be any public recognition of right i mean that's a very fundamental problem with this claim the petitioner testified regarding the july two thousand and nine rally that they expected somewhere around five thousand or six thousand b s p members to a tent and that only about fifteen hundred showed up because there was this sort of widespread fear of the coll case why is there nothing to show that these attacks were happening on at least a semi widespread basis right in my only point is that that is bets distinguishable from this other point which had to do with his rank within the were if both parties written large were at each other's throats it seems to me that there would be that seems to be a basis to find allegation implausible because it's uncorroborated yes yeah your honor i do agree with that i think i think the immigration judge was also saying that you know maybe this would be a little bit different if this were somebody who was a party leader who was maybe i'm not sure can we move on to another point because now i think i've taken you on a detour that doesn't matter very much but what about what was corroborated i mean there is this letter from the hospital it looks pretty quite specific and is on the right tape there's no explanation for why he would difficulty as you noted when you look at that record there is mention of injuries there's no mention of why or how those multiple injuries over his body in the form of bruises and swellings on the back of his abdomen and legs and arms correctly consistent with beaten which is absolutely it is why isn't that cooperation is that's judge present point it's not corroboration because it says nothing as to why or how those injuries occurred it says nothing as to the fundamental implausibility in the claim that there were b s p members and a colleague all but all members at each other's throats and when you look at the other corroborated documents provided namely the three affidavits the immigration judge noted that there was problems with the in d c of reliability but those documents she also mentioned is overall demeanor which you know she was in a position to observe and we are not correct and evasiveness and the transcript helps us a little better assess the problem with  translation was communication an issue or barrier but there's certainly no argument by the petitioner in this case that there was a problem with communication between the translator and the applicant and what they clearly was if you read the transcript because he was apparently changing languages yes occasionally he would slip into speaking in hindi or english and the immigration judge reminded the applicant to please continue to testify in punjabi so that the translator could understand him but there is no argument here that there was such a lack of communication between the translator and the applicant that he was unable to provide a clear picture of his persecution claim or adequately respond to questions and the immigration judges and adverse credibility finding is supported by the record there was a demeanor finding that there were certain points where the applicant was challenged with questions about his testimony and was respons defend that as certainly an example of shifting testimony the applicant initially testified that the specific men who attacked him in july of two thousand and nine recognized him as a member of the b s p placed on a button that he was wearing on his chest in the front yard he testified they were following me from behind then they pulled ahead of me stopped me on the road and attacked me well that actually raised the question how did they recognize you as a member but it didn't that that was the p for me seemed to be one of the weaker links frankly because i think the testimony is that he had been at a rally and he was leaving the rally right not that they just came upon him on the road and they were behind him on the road where they clearly would have been able to see the political button  from earlier in the day is it that they saw you at the rally and it was at that point that the petitioner provided a couple of unresponsive statements and response to that question saying well i was bringing water into the rally from water tankers outside well that didn't really answer the question and moreover it there's no way that he could have known for sure if these pacific men knew him from and from the rally because on pages one hundred eight and one hundred  nine of the record he said their face there's their faces were covered when they attacked me so i couldn't exactly make out who they were so he may have believed that perhaps these men recognized him from earlier in the day he couldn't have known for sure but if he believed that these men probably recognised him from earlier in the day the really he could have simply said that and said when he was initially asked about the button and how could they have seen it if they were following you from behind he said well actually they rode up ahead of me they went to a gas station they turned around and came back and that's when they saw it well that was really quite different from what he testified to originally originally so he said they came up from behind me they pulled ahead of me and they stopped me not that they pulled ahead of me went to a gas station came back saw my butt and made a u turn and then came up from behind me to stop me an attack as to demeanor the i j a says that the demeanor seem were the negative demeanor determination right i think that the negative demeanor determination really came in with the unresponsive answers whenever this applicant was pressed about some holes and his testimony honor i apologize i don't know off the top in my head i can provide that and it's one e j letter if the court prefers but your honors even if the court disagrees with the adverse credibility finding in this case this is a situation where corroboration was required to provide greater reliability this was weak testimony that was certainly in need of corroboration the applicant received notice of that and opportunity to provide that and correct and if that's a sure was accurate and testifying that the in mid city between the b s p and the a t p was so severe that low level members of the party were being attacked frequently after rallies then surely that documentation in the form of a newspaper article at least would have been available and if it were unavailable then this applicant had the opportunity to explain that i mean there was a of over two months he appeared at a reconvened hearing at that time he could have explained i searched i took these measures to find the corroboration that the immigration judge requested but the applicant didn't do that he didn't provide any kind of explanation as to why the requested corroboration would not have been available at your honour's i see that my time has expired thank you very much your honors i had the opportunity to look and the edges finding of non responsive this is page fifty five of the record five five five five it seems that part of her finding rust on speculation and conjecture just because the petitioner couldn't give more detail about what the police told his family members after he'd already departed india that seem to have been a basis for her negative finding but in fact is explained in the briefs he didn't know what the police said as his family hadn't really that kind of detail to him and therefore that was an improper basi to find him non responsive as far as the medical documentation at fifty seven blame the petitioner for failing to provide more detail in his written original statement but he was allowed to flesh out the details of the injuries he sustained in the treatment he got during the course of testimony which he did and he corroborated it with the medical document in exhibit fine thank you so much