court i'm robert job and i'm appearing today on behalf of the petitioner more interesting like to jump right in to the transcript if i can page one fifty six of the transcript is in this case the immigration judge repeatedly admonished the petition that he needed to be which she called responsive and she told him for example on page one fifty six of the transcript of the record if you're not responsive it will be an indication of you reciting a memorize story rather than being honest and upfront about with saskia she repeated that same admonition twice during the course of the hearing she found him to be unresponsive and four separate instances for example here on page one fifty six when mr singh was recounting the circumstances of his release following his nine hundred ninety six arrest he was asked the question was now why were you released some paid one fifty cents he goes on to say i was released because they didn't give me any treatment there there's no medicines my arms full and i like this one basically saying they needed me they released me so i can get medical treatment she says the judge you're not responsive sir the question to you was when were you released why are you going into a question areas that we're not asking you wasn't asked when we released he was asked why were you released and then she goes on to issues here because maybe she said when and where and there seems to be translation difficulties where people are rocking past each other and that's right that's exactly right but here is a clear example where she's saying he's not responsive when he was responsive she mis understood the question another example of that your honor is on page one seventy seven of the transcript and this begins i'm line eleven where he was being questioned about his first ar he answers the question about the first arrest and then on line eighteen the question begins and then the second arrest and the questioner says i mean excuse me and then mr singh interjects the second question mark asking which are you talking about and he goes on to say which one are you asking me about because he's trying to clarify two sentences earlier he was it being asked about first arrest now she's asking about the second he says trying to clarify the judge johnston how many  and then she goes down on the following page and again on page one seventy eight she says the government was asking you an english question and you proceeded to respond and talk about your second arrest and then you said which one let me remind you to be responsive and provide answer to the question that was asked rather than just reciting something that you might have memorized or you think you need to talk about the guy was just asking what would you arrest you talking about you know even the questions the questions that and then the second arrest and the question is that i mean excuse me the question i wasn't even sure which arrest he was talking about the third example of this allegedly nonresponsive now relates to the november and he says in response to their killing the police arrested thousands of sikhs they targeted sikhs who had been arrested before or who had been politically active against the government in the past and at the asylum office he said the talk about his political activities he starts talking about i was a member of a colleague and i was involved in these various elections and she cuts a month she doesn't want to hear that answer and she says you're not being responses are you talking about we're talking about one thousand nine hundred five and you're going back to hundred five but that's how he needed to answer the question because the answer to the question is they were targeting people that were politically active he's attempting to explain his political activities and draw a connection and she cut him off he was being entirely responsive transcript on page one ninety this begins really with the letter from the doctor because the doctor who treated him following the one nine hundred ninety five rast submitted a letter that that he was having bruising injuries and swelling over his face and limbs so then they asked him about this and the question and begins on page one ninety w time my entire body was swollen he's perfectly consistent with the letter the letter sent by his limbs were swollen he says my and my entire body was swollen including my knees but the judge chastise because he refuses to characterize that swelling as an injury but that if you look at it it's clear that what he means there he says it over and over again that my knees were swollen but there was no  explain there was no injury like there was no blood injury and the judge says i'm not talking about won't you're being very evasive at this point he's not being a vase that he's telling you my knees were swollen but there wasn't a blood injury there wasn't any wound as such and he kills it on any repeat over and over again and at the end of this discussion you know where he's perfectly consistent saying my knees were swollen but there wasn't a real war and as such she says i like the record to reflect that this responding as being under sponsored he wasn't he was perfectly consistent and he was responsive i think i'll reserve the balance of my time to see what the government counsel here my colleague has just has pointed to specific instances in the transcript and sort of you know filled in some of the gaps to make them appear responsive when they may not always be responsive but the fact is that the inconsistency is upon which the  where this document basically talks about how they're treating him for this knee injury just so bad that it's been lingering for nearly a decade now they're giving him different medication because it's because of this lingering and now this injury when he was asked about his knee injury the part of the transcript which you just read his first response was to say well my knee had already recovered by the time these indian physicians have treated wounds that's why it's not in these documents that were submitted by the indian physicians they were dated far before this two thousand and three document so you know his first response was to say my knee had already recovered and then he changed his response and said that oh well you know it had been it had been dislocated you know no where in any of the documentation prior to this two thousand and three document is there any indication that his need been dislocated and this is the injury according to his story which has been the most lingering injury that he has so that's a pretty sound basis for an adverse credibility finding mean that's where these claims fall apart is where the documentation doesn't match up that's where you find the holes in the stories as far as the responsiveness i mean the opposing counsel has definitely offered plausible explanations for why these instances might be responsive rather than non response i have to say reading this i felt like i was like in a laurel and hardy routine to be honest reading this transcript it was like no one was making any sense i mean they're like i'm talking about this and i'm talking about that and it's almost and it may be a translation problem that's what i don't know but reading it it's pretty hard to discern how you could make any credibility finding from at least i'm looking now at that me one because there seems to be a collision here between a  injury and that and that he is saying that there was no extra bleeding but the and that his leg was swollen but the problem here is that he claimed his leg was dislocated and in the documents that were submitted by the indian physicians this is documentation not testimony that in the documents that they submitted there's no mention of any dislocation of any there's no mention of any period and then interviews that miss this document in two thousand and three that says oh he's got this lingering injury there's a huge problem with his knee and when he was confronted with that his first response his first response and there's no confusion in the in the translation here is that why isn't this in the documentation from these indian physicians that treated you when you first had this wound and he said my knee had already recovered by that that was his first initial response and that's you know that's what happens with somebody gets caught in with a hole in their stories that first there's a denial then all of a sudden there is this you know back laurel and hardy routine i don't know whether or not it's a translation error or not but i do know that they didn't choose to address this on redirect examination they just let let it lies for the immigration judge is left with his inconsistent documentation position reports and written for this reports which don't mention anything about what supposedly the most significant injury that he  mean i mean is that a basis for an adverse credibility finding i think you go either way to be frank i mean maybe maybe he is maybe he isn't but the question isn't whether or not they've offered a plausible explanation for this the question is whether or not the record compels that explanation i think that you agree agent and well i think that has to do in part with the demeanor finding that the immigration judge made because what the immigration judge stated was that it appeared as though the petitioner was simply reciting confusion over what he was saying was an injury because remember he had just answered the question they asked him did you sustain injury to your knee and he said no to time so the immigration judge is saying what's going on here but are they ended up they ended up sorting it out and and  a hole in his story that he was caught in and that is initial response was not credible that's also possible i think when you combine that with the fact that the immigration judge specifically said that he was just simply reciting a story rather than giving testimony that's consistent with a first just tell me the transcript reference so i can go back on that again certainly this is do you know that your doctor's letter made no mention of the problem associated with your knee that they had recovered by that time that's that that was it that was his initial response to the knee injury is saying that his need recovered and yet here we have the documentation of two thousand and three letter from years later saying that this injury was so severe that it's still being treated that very day that was the initial response that he made and then you have this sort of what you call the laurel and hardy and just going on ahead i mean again and it may body was swollen but again this isn't just of all the me this is he claims that his knee was dislocated there's no mention of any discipline that's not the same thing as swelling who fix the dislocated knee i mean that's nowhere in the documentation with the indian physicians and you'd think that if this injury was so severe that it's still affecting him in two thousand and three that there would be some sort of mention of that and again there's another inconsistency with respect to the immigration judge basically adverse credibility finding on with his response to the asylum officers notice of intent to deny where he just makes a blanket statement i was arrested three times that would seem to be in direct contradiction to his testimony in his asylum application which he says that he was arrested five or six times i think it's five times  or something along those lines but again now is it plausible that he was just responding with only three arrests in his letter it's plausible but is it also plausible that this is an inconsistency yes and again of the standard of review is does the record compel a finding that this is the only way the immigration judge could have come out is to say that he was credible in light of this inconsistency i mean this is how claims this is i mean when somebody if you look at the record in the profile dealing with whether or not the documentation is consistent with the testimony whether or not you know they're in the injuries that they claim match up with physicians reports when there are holes in that an immigration judge is entitle to look at this particularly where there's a demeanor problem or in the way that it appears that they're reciting me what's important about the demeanor findings it's not very well explained but she says the demeanor of the respondent is not credible and then she says for example suggesting that there's several things she's relying on but she's going to describe one as he was describing  and then she goes on and says which her favorite like he was talking as though he was reciting a story and there was no real emotion that the court can see in the signing a story thing that bothers me because that's what she was saying throughout the hearing every time she thought he was being evasive and every time she