to reserve two minutes of possible correct thank you may begin yes placed under the theory of this case for us a simple it's an adverse credibility finding that we don't believe was substantially support then inconsistency so that's a point number one so the two minor missions are supplementary in nature young or he doesn't mention being hit in the face so the judge claims that only a mission is that his nose was bleeding that is extremely minor petitioners and applicants always expound on their harm it can be minor if it's inconsistent but it's in the mission under the real i d i d act the i j a bases her decision on the the circumstances so why is there evidence that the i j a did not consider in making her credibility determination i think she considered all the evidence but arrived in incorrect conclusion according to the president of the score that states that inconsistency that a missions are less probative than outright inconsistency is and the two emissions are extremely minor in nature he doesn't mention that family planning authority saw his wife vomit why would anybody put that in the statement in the st place i think well i did address it and said if you were there at the family planning and one of the one of the symptoms of being pregnant is i see that i have some women in the audience and women that have had morning sickness yes at some times there's some bomb uneaten up checking that goes along and if she was trying to conceal her pregnancy why wouldn't she close t bathroom door well that's goes to the end i mean that's what i'd say sad right so that goes to the other element of the case which is the two plausibility findings which we argue are complete speculation and conjecture where the judge goes ahead and dictates how somebody ought to behave in this situation then she doesn't consider that these are poor and sophisticated farmers and not somebody who has the benefit of hindsight and knows that in four days there will be forced to have an abortion answer the question yes or not is the standard for plausibility i understand if there's an inconsistent statement yes it's very difficult to get those overturned right and i actually agree with your position on the emissions the plausibility though i am having a hard time figuring out what the standard is and i i actually think our law is in crystal clear on that so yes and if so i looked up a couple cases and the one i found that seems to supported by substantial evidence and if we don't just roll the substantial evidence test back in the plant's ability though that that's confusing to me right now i mean it seems to me  that if the judge had the correct if the judge had all the facts in front of her then she could make some findings us to whether or not this was plausible but in this case despite the petitioners explanations of this behavior the judge said well this is not reasonable and i think in this case she went beyond in trying to recent posts how they should act and there is a number of cases that say the judges should not act as experts and should not  the documents should liken what they should do in the situation so that's our position that the way you're explaining what i'm hearing is the judge said are temporary but then the judge thought differently than you think the judge should have seen it and i mean if i give you an example like say in criminal law there's something called flight and jurors can be instructed that it could be consciousness of guilt running off but then on the other hand people can look at it differently and say well maybe he didn't run because he had a cast on his foot well that being if court was if a judge were confronted with that and decided that the person ray on when they were to get away from the crime scene as opposed to that maybe they were sort of slowed down by a cast or whatever that you know why isn't that just a different way to look at it and if it's a different way to look at it you lose right well i understand your point you know honor and yes of course the judge is allowed to look at it  in different ways but then we would not have olisa cases about speculation and conjecture i mean there is obviously a line between where the judge can make inferences and think ok well this doesn't make any sense as opposed to what the judge did in this case where she said this is this is not reasonable how these people acted in this situation which is speculation and shooting the door when she was throwing up at the family planning what's the other area that you're saying speculation the other area is the judge says they were warned twice but still did not escape so the judge says the four days they had it's not reasonable he's such a gung ho gentleman and he's so the position of a giant she's just a poor farmer was no education and he even testified gone out i didn't think they would come so fast so he gave some reasons we were getting ready the aunt wasn't ready we were trying to get her permission i didn't think they would come so fast but yet they did and the judge says well that's not reasonable sir you should have known after the warning that they would come so fast money or smile or would it be reasonable to take four days to get out of the building position that this is twenty years ago in the countryside poor farmers story of the scum and say we might come and take your wife away i mean the life might move at a different pace there than the judge i think in this occasion a little overstep or bounds an imposed her maybe western thinking on how these climbers are you talked about we have to look at the position he was in yes you also have to look at the position where i which which complicates your argument a bit i believe i do believe that we're looking at here we're looking here as to whether or not or a substantial evidence yes to support the b i determination yes  didn't have any inconsistency which is usually what the court hangs there had on and i just think the judge was grasping at straws and trying to deny this gentleman may be his claim was in that week she never a strong she didn't address ready to hear the government's argument may please the court victoria braga appearing on behalf of the attorney general the court should deny this petition for view because the record does not compel a conclusion contrary to the agencies that mr bauer testified incredibly mr bauer embellish testimony st by adding the incident in which he described his wife vomiting in front of family planning officials this court has recently addressed the difference between the mere omission of details and telling a much different and more compelling story  vomited in the bathroom how does that help his asylum claim i think it's a more compelling story because of the scene that's dorie paints he testifies that that is the event for his entire claim basically in the court and addressed a similar situation in a case cited in silver pereira algor alvarez santos the ins where the court why is that i don't understand why that's the precipitating event for his claim i thought his claim was i'm a pope whether you believe him or not his claim is i'm opposed to her and i persecuted me and my wife is persecuted because of the one family rule and in fact they wanted to sterilize him and so he left china so i don't understand how seems like a pretty attenuated a link to go to say that was going to rise or fall based on him adding the statement that his wife was vomiting in the bathroom well i think it's not necessarily adding this statement but i do think that the claim is based on the fact that his wife was pregnant and none of this would have ever happened had a family planning officials not discover th dispute that she was pregnant i guess that's where i'm getting hung up because if she'd been pregnant the same thing would have happened if she'd thrown up i mean we all know what happened she she was got a forced abortion from the government and whether she threw up seems to have little if any bearing on any of this except perhaps that's how they found out and also i should really turn turn the screws and used it like any good prosecutor might just say well you want to shut the door then if you wouldn't you know that and so then use that to say that that's another reason that it wasn't credible not just that it was an embellishment but it's like that just isn't possible either because if you were trying to hide your pregnancy why would you leave the door open for everyone to say that you were vomited in the bathroom right right well i think that i would use you say that in both respects shows that it is a detail that is essential to his claim i detail that you would expect especially based on the way that he describes it in testimony how he says she rushed to the bathroom and she vomited in the sink it's a detail that just that i j is saying you would have expected this to be in a statement it's not just a mere omission of something that has no bearing on your claim back up it isn't and is the government's position it's in a mission or that it's an inconsistency the government's position is that it is an embellish t so it would be not an inconsistency but an omission from the written statement and then but more importantly it is an embellishment in his oral testimony and similarly another investment in his oral testimony is the fact that he was bleeding because he was abused by police officers yes who he said his nose was bleeding based on the fact that this is an asylum claim based on persecution you expect or the i j a was reasonable and expecting that any injuries and the resulting harm that he suffered should have been in his application and just adding this detail during his testimony does qualify as an embellishment that could support an adverse  from the standpoint that it would be like if i said that someone beat me with a stick and that was all that i said and then later when i came and testified i said that they  they called my they they broke my hands there or something like that with is that an embellishment or is that just an inconsistency or what is that or something that you would think you would put your your worst injuries forward is that but i don't know what do you why don't all that i don't think it's necessarily inconsistent to provide the bare minimum details and then to provide further details i see an inconsistency as two different statements things that could not possibly exist or happened at the same time so i think it's more appropriate to characterize this is an embellishment isn't that an omission because that you would be expected if that would be important to your case why would you leave it out and less for making it up right i think an embellishment and an omission sort of go hand in hand here there's the omission from the written statement meaning that the testimony is in baelish i think that inconsistency  between these omissions and embellishments and just mere details and how about the case of being dari from two thousand and one circuit case that called similar embellishments in that case merely details i mean isn't that it just seems like it's a very fine line here i would agree that it is a fine line but i think that brings us back to the standard of review here and the standard of review is for substantial evidence so if we're in a situation where it is a fine line whether this is an embellishment or just the omission of the mere detail and the record doesn't necessarily compel a conclusion that's contrary to that of the agencies that is an embellishment supporting an adverse credibility finding that doesn't substantial have some meaning i mean i see some evidence here to support but it does that rise to the level of i mean substantial evidence i think it would rise to the level in that the court must of a firm and i just finding as long as any reasonable adjudicator could make that finding so some evidence i think in the minds of some adjudicators would be enough and additionally in this case as your honour's mentioned there are implausibilities about mr bows testimony and the most striking impossibility i think is that he and his wife did not act more quickly in moving her into hiding and the petitioner was i think mischaracterizing the ideas finding on this impossibility a little bit during his argument so the idea wasn't necessarily saying it was implausible that they didn't move more quickly in general she was saying it was implausible that they didn't move more quickly given his testimony to that the moment that they found out his wife was pregnant their plan was to move her into hiding  speculation about why someone would have done something differently there's got to be some why there's going to be some guiding principle to this well i'm not sure if there would be a guiding principle because i think it is based on the circumstances of every case and i think that's why the i j a relied so heavily on the fact that he did say our immediate plan was to move her into hiding and yet there's a passage of somewhere between four to seven days and she doesn't move into hiding and i think that the i j a again looked at the circumstances specific to this case and said you know i sort of don't understand why and that's a reasonable conclusion given here that the aunt had already been contacted that it didn't seem that there needed to be many arrangements made mr balham self said he would be staying home his mother was also home they had one daughter that he and his mother could have cared for and it seems like you know the plans as petitioner said they had looked into tickets she had started to pack her luggage and this is all in the midst of two other warnings is just implausible that in those circumstances you're essentially ready to go but you just don't take that final step you essentially wait for the family planning if it isn't just been one day would that be also implausible if the if they had come the next day and we would we be justified in upholding the i g is determination that it's absolutely implausible that they would have left within one day i think it would have depended on the circumstances of the case that certainly would be a harsher finding by the i j but here it clearly is more than one day but it's four days if it's if it's eight months ok i but that's that's the struggle i have is if we if we rule in the government's favor here we're given sort of carte blanche to i to these i js to just come up with anything i would have done it differently and then we're stuck saying well i j said she would have done it differently so that's the end of the story and i see my time is concluded may briefly respond thank you so again i think that that i j is not saying just generally that things should have been done differently she's saying that here given these circumstances and given his testimony and given the facts that it seems that it would have been easy in these four days or it would have been plausible in these four days for mr ballard to move his wife into hiding it's just an impossibility here in this case that supports the adverse credibility finding that if i understand your argument you're you're relying on the standard as a preview you're relying on the real i d act and you're basically respectfully saying yeah the i j a was there that we're here and so under those circumstances that there isn't that you know if we were to not agree with the i j a we would be enters we would be interjecting our own judgment on which a different fact finder could have been free to do yes your honor we are arguing that substantial evidence supports that adverse credibility finding and the record does not compel a contrary conclusion to that of the agencies thank you for your argument youngers i'd like to address two points it is clearly details if you look at the statement he says as we were trying the way to keep the child the family planning office found out rather suspected that my wife was pregnant so he already alludes to it so the vomiting incident is simply him expounding on the incident it is not embellishing he also says when i still refused to leave one guard punched me in my face he doesn't embellish as he doesn't make up new injuries now if he made up some new injuries and said they also beat me with a baton and i had concussion that would be a significant a mission that could sink  this whole case since that we just have minor addition details as the court mentioned in bond the other case the council kept mentioning it doesn't seem like it doesn't seem like that is unsupported this belief as the court pointed out there's just not substantial evidence here for the for the judge to arrive at the conclusions that she did there is not something in there to compare it to this is simply her own belief the what how did this man should have behaved and i do believe that the court ought to be compelled to find that substantial evidence does not support the