she's a member of that tribe and was also on an executive council for the political career the president of the political group was arrested and tortured by the nigerian government when he was release right she claims she was on married right and never married mr wong who is center to hong kong for some surgery on the other hand she presented some medical records in which the name appears patricia can be long but that's one number two she presented a driver's license which has her name as mr s i can e why is that not sufficient documentary evidence upon which the i j a can find that she hasn't proved her identity because on the one hand she says she's married on the other hand she's not married and that is of course an issue that goes to the heart of the matter he gave her an opportunity to explain these  someone not credible in an asylum hearing secondly she did provide a reasonable explanation she said that when she was in hong kong mr wong held her out as his wife so that she could get the treatment she had appears no right to be in hong kong and that he decided to help her she was too sick to deal with any of the documents in the forms at the hospital and in fact had to sit outside because she was incontinent and had a by international airport interviews he says some things that she clearly contradicts later and she explains why she contradicts them but there are clear contradictions i think to say i find the story that mr wong out of the goodness of his heart would take her to hong kong where this is more readily explained if they are in fact husband and wife it's not impossible of course that it happened exactly as it did and were i had a look at this that she has failed to prove her identity as i read the record she was your client was basically sandbagged on this one that is at an early stage the i just simply my documents will be sufficient to prove identity then when she comes in with employment documents of a different government attorney really to allow another shot at proving identity we're everybody is clear on the ground rules as to what's acceptable evidence because i think i think she got i think she got tripped on that maybe too strong because that implies deliber other ways to do that including as this court noted on monday in kalua specific details concerning once heritage one family one identity and where one grew up all of which th sacramento area was just so one of them for a way well that's at least two hours and when you i mean one never knows when someone goes into labor if it's going to be a two hour labor or twenty four hour labor but i think that we need to focus on what the material issues are here and if we assume that identity is one of them she did provide plenty of evidence to establish her identity the judge just focused on one third of color error and what happened in hong  kong i understand the court's concern about why mr wong would provide this and it's an interesting question but it's not material to her claim which is the political activity and it's speculative and conjecture to assume that  even if she was married to mr wong that that would change her position in nigeria in some way there was no evidence stablished that she had any right to live in hong kong all of that's really conjecture the and again once again charles cantor of the half the attorney general your honor i think there's some confusion about what is the that what is the issue here there's an adverse credibility determination that adverse credibility determination is based on a number of factors first it is the when i say i think judge fletcher no it is is a troublesome story i own right it's a somewhat and implausible story as it is like any told it second there are contradictions between the airport interview and her testimony heard the i j a go at it specifically there's the failure to corroborate her testimony with easily available evidence that her brother just to get that out of the way right quickly now the brother was available by telephone correct brother the brother there is a  issue of whether she's patrician specifically whether she's married or not in the abstract may not may not matter except that as the immigration judge noted and consistent with this this court it's not is there another patricia i can't it's not is this patricia i came if the question is why is she she you can divide up the reasons for why i think that the immigration judge gave for the average credibility terminations and here cheap she arrived in the united states with no with no with with a fake passport with someone else's pastoral fort she says she gives no indication that he's fleeing persecution instead he her testimony hurt her statement at the was ill mr wong out of the goodness of his heart took me to hong kong my company because they thought i was a good employee allow me to do so he paid for complicated medical procedures i and supported my convalescence for seven months when i returned mr wong with whom i have no personal relationship well know them quite know she's those who force who tried to force me to marry him i refused she page two fourteen to fifteen of the transcript is there a personal relationship between you and mr wong no there's no there's no indication that she has it that there is her story it's so she returns back to nigeria mr wong then takes her passport well actually she asked for her passport she says i don't have it can he says can you bring it back she brings it back why i don't know she doesn't provide a reason why would she do that gives him a passport and then he takes different things if the i j a had said more what you're saying instead of simply saying she focusing so heavily on the fact that she's not prove her identity i wouldn't have the reaction that i do this i  up with precisely the documents that she'd been told would suffice which is why my documents which you thought up on a lot of them when the government objected the i g says they're not good enough so it seems to me that it's only fair to allow that her to go back over the course of one of the two days which i judged excuse me the immigration judge allowed the hearing to continue but be he can't submit an affidavit a statement after all the perjury even a letter which is often sufficient in immigration cases to just say this is my sister do not accept testimony from lady witnesses my colleague is looking for the cite but i do remember seeing that in the record secondly she did not reside with her brother who moved away to sacramento that's at the administrative record one sixty nine  i believe the issue about hong kong is a red herring that would not have come up at this immigration judge had not herself been from hong kong the issue is identity and then was her strongly about financial persecution that she was petrified that they were going to send her back to nigeria at the airport and that she was afraid to get anyone in trouble in the u difficultly her relatives who had helped her the immigration judge