of critical importance one is the certificate of family planning operation showing that he his wife was sterilized the other one was the assessment of thirty five thousand renminbi the chinese money and the third one is the receipt for the payment of the fine the the documents were submitted in august of two thousand and one and about a year later the government attorney took possession of the original document for a forensic analysis a year after that during the hearing of the year after that the immigration immigration judge proceeded with the hearing without the expert analysis  holding simply that the documents although would be admitted into evidence would be afforded we discount the probative value would be afforded little probative value and what was the reason given jack had offered that he was concerned with with reports from the state department and i can sympathize with that but that's of course not a substitute for substantial evidence he simply said that  complete analysis and when the time came the government father noted a motion to continue the case because the analysis not been completed finally about a year later the judge said well i'm going to be disciplined because i they would they were original documents with official c original seals of the government of the chinese of the chinese government and so he's met his burden of proof insofar as far too easy seven point six is concerned the government of course while the rest of the regulation is is not mandatory it's permissive the government took it upon itself to to ask for a authentication which they did not ultimately did not provide did not on the day of the hearing areas he he found although they were the answers testimony was on the sponsor for evasive he did not offer any specific cogent reasons for that determination another so for example on one occasion  on august twenty eighth one thousand nine hundred eighty the family planning workers went to the home of the of the petition and his wife during her fifth month of pregnancy and wanted her to go in for an abortion so bled and he fled the judge found that testimony live testimony very troubling he said because how come how come you you did not mention that in your application well actually he did in two different places in in this application and that i five eighty nine application in his statement he he goes into quite a bit of detail about the incident could you tell me where i got there right here in front of me it's on harbor one of them fell he unfortunately still hit his head and was bleeding and ice and this document was provided to home at what time it was originally provided in two thousand and one long with you is application for that's correct your honor and on the second occasion although the there was a lot of confusion there and i think the responsive and evasive answers really had to do with misunderstanding and communication problems  probably see from the transcript i don't i'm not saying that did in the interpreter and the petitioner do not in the stand each other but being english was not a native language of the interpreter in any event on the on that on that occasion the judge found it incredible beauty but he didn't he didn't allude to any specific cogent reasons for his determination and not only that it was an erroneous assessment of the record and therefore he his assessment is not supported by substantial evidence  has got to look at that it's a very serious concern because because it's the crux of the application so and this court has held over and over again that where a determination of adverse credibility correct the issue is not whether she had a forced abortion because one however this transpired she had the second child we know that the issue is forced sterilization and the story as we get it have to say i'm not familiar with the specifics of chinese medical practice but if this were an american medical practice it would be unusual after having had one c section not have the second birth be done by a second c section purely as a matter of  medical precaution well we have to take you on over the documents as what they are unless of course there's problems that come back from the analysis because in the sterilization  involuntary we know from his own testimony that they were not trying to have a second child when she became pregnant with her second child whose testimony as much right as only they were delighted which is a fairly common reaction but they weren't trying to do so because it was against policy and try to figure out how likely it is or how strong their stance or resistance would have been to a sterilization at the second birth not not not the question of whether she was same question judge like your head the idea is they didn't really and were planning to have a second child they knew was against the policy pleasant surprise but if they weren't plan to have a second child it wouldn't surprise me that they really wouldn't anticipate having a third and so what evidence is there of resistance to the to the like the totality of circumstances suggest that they resisted any intrusion into their bodies at least not on a voluntary basis so for example she was given the choice of either quitting  was being fired or having the voice in the end it would have been very simple matter if she had any if there was any basis to think that she might have not resisted any involuntary intrusion into her body so rather than  nation that whole story was not fully as i can hear on the i j a had numerous reasons for the adverse credibility finding i find six of them to be particularly well supported in the in the record i think it was inconsistent on first of all whether there was a need for the syrian section the second time around the timing of the employers threats to the wife about losing her job was it in april was it in july was there an arrest warrant issued for him for assaulting the enforcer with his reasons for wanting to come to the united states shifted number five he was able to apparently get a passport even though the police were supposedly looking for him and number six the forty eight supposed monthly visits to the white house all the at least many of which occurred after he left the country each of these six would be enough to cast doubt  through the briefs and with respect to the key document about sterilisation which does appear i think it's three forty seven of the record  e second i got the right side fully three fifty seven it appears that the judge accepted that without restriction into evidence that's on page forty five of his record he's listing the documents and he says identification documents a statement from the respondent regarding syria and sterilization admitted and he doesn't say admitted with restrictions as he does for the for the other documents but  the potential effect might be whether the documents would reinforce or reinstate the credibility of the applicant i sang the so i wouldn't put that among the six things that would support the credibility whether the issue of a list was forced was made up after the fact used his personal experience in making the assessment so for example for the arrest warrant petitioner never mentioned the arrest warrant at the initial stage of the hearing he said he was concerned that because of what he'd done  and in his words because of a guilty conscience they're going to be after him and from there it went to an arrest warrant and and furthermore it became speculation and conjecture that the that the chinese government would do whatever it is that the judge thinks that him yes he he they just found out troubling i know but but i thought scuse me the transcript shows that mr mr lindh had provided a detail explanation other words in his in his statement that sent along with the photographs that his wife provided he said that after the sterilization the persecution began other words he was he alluded to the fact that he was continuing being harassed if if i mean that term or being visited the constant unrelentless visits from the family planners and there's nothing inherently unbelievable about that in other words it's just speculation and conjecture that the government would do whatever it is know which go over to his house and ask for his whereabouts and the the inconsistency that the judge found in in the government looking for him at his grandmother's house and asking about the son is what he understood was important to the case and what the courts but the judge was asking him about ok thank you very much thank thank both sides for their argument the case when versus chrysler now submitted for the next case on the