reliance on exaggeration and then consistency for example saying that its numbers nose was broken but then in testimony exaggerating that to say that she was hospitalized for  months that's just one example why is that not of sufficient grounds to discuss in the corner because actually your honor if you look at one that question was asked one on it actually he testified or less it was a month but then when the actual i'm going to turn he had cross examine him and said so a month your mom spent in the hospital so she actually assumed the actual time frame  so much that he had to that time frame said more or less it was him and then actually he testify consistently with well well his counsel i'm looking at at page one sixty eight of the of the excerpts record one sixty eight and the testimony question was question when you said use immunity for short time what do you mean for a short time and in your count your client says if my memory is correct after my mother was injured graziers we have an adverse credibility determination we also have the immigration judge apparently relying at least in part on the failure to corroborate bring corroborating evidence right so my question is is there enough here putting aside the absence of corroboration for an immigration judge reasonably to conclude that your client was incredible that's an interesting issue on this issue he says a month for a broken nose more or less that seems exaggerated there's a couple other instances when i could go into them where were the testimony is i think it reasonable person could find perhaps not credible is that enough  orders or are we need picking the record i honestly think if you look at comparing that to the record it's a very interesting question but the judge actually starts his credibility terminations on lack of  don't know whether or not what facts are true because of the fact that we didn't have an affidavit from his father and if she was able to as he wanted to and once again he said if your honor you feel it's very important judge had stated on the record other ways that would be like not detected by the chinese government but his fears were reasonable so even if you look like in the same case and and there were inconsistent season statement and testimony you know saying that he was for that he was a literate meanwhile and then was holding up a book that was that had english handwriting on it he said that his father had written written on it he tied he was wearing an affluent clothes definitely he said he learned english from the zero tapes but then the judge gave him otis an opportunity to get other documents to prove that he was part of the sub clan and that that a clan existed and so in this case the same thing when there's some kinds of things that kind of go against the record but even a den and there the judge gave him an opportunity to say hey you know what if you give me this clobbering evidence now i have more to balance on credibility and when there is actually at the totality of the circumstances on the session he actually was consistent with his statement he was consistent with his testimony so to cooperate that i mean i think it would be best to have the person who's  to write the letter he's more concerned with that he was putting his mom in jeopardy by having that letter sent to china and he didn't think of any other way so the judge man did why don't you have these things and he said well i feared that the police would get them and that's supported by the country condition reports on page two ten i believe of the rector actually two to sixteen of the record second paragraph stating that they monitor the national and international mount so he feared that if he if he would it would send that it would put them in harm's way plus the police that coupled with the fact that the police told his family  there's another place in the record where the judge said why couldn't you have evidence about the hospital stay and you said he asked him his mother said she couldn't get it that's correct and but here's case my client is he already said he said i would like to tell the judge that may simply this is my opinion that i can't get it because my mother said she couldn't get the records that that seems to me to prescription meds that she had during that period of time i could support that with a letter acquiring that our nose was broken so i mean i would have been an opportunity if you would have given notice of that i mean they said government attorney had suggested  l let me ask the question a little bit differently what is there in his record to support the adverse credibility determination other than the absence of corroboration  go i'm asking this question he takes the stand and says my mother spent a month in the hospital for a broken ok judge says that's not believable nobody spent a month in the hospital for a broken nose  is that it is that of a credibility determination made without regard to the absence of corroborating evidence i believe that would be more of an expert testimony cooperation and i don't know if the judge would have that experience to make that judgment is there any other basis for the adverse credibility determination in your view in this record and i want to say a question to your opponent  but it's it seems to me that the not a random basis seems to be based on at least two things one is exaggerating testimony my mother is in ospital from i probably locked up for the rest of my life first one for a moment did he eventually file a certificate or to church attendance yes he did and he actually had his membership that was supported in the tab i believe tab f was the one that before and i don't believe those excuses understand the excuses but the judge ultimately allowed it in evidence my question is whether the the judge is belief that is excuses were not credible  conform to refinish conform to the basis of a lack of credibility without cooperation without an opportunity for cooperate in that church witness or with the actual people who are involved how could the judge actually make that basis without having given him an opportunity to provide that evidence and notice of that and then  let's hear from the young men please the court my name is katherine clarke appearing for the respondent petitioner's counsel here concedes just today that we don't know what the facts are what facts are true and when that happens in these cases that actually favors affirming the decision of the immigration judge and the board of immigration appeals as to credibility because a stopwatch and what facts are true is the burden of mr sun records as quickly as you as i thought you could and your excuses didn't sound very good to me what else or what other basis is there other than lack of cooperation for the lack of credibility determination respectfully with regard to the period of time in the hospital for the broken nose the issue is not simply that it was implausible though the implausibility of that period was cited on page seventy nine the immigration judge also noted that the petitioner did not mention his mother's hospitalization in his douglas ration at all so it was not simply a question of whether mr sun said in his declaration that his mother was in the hospital for one period of time and then perhaps he wear it on whether it was quite as long in his testimony his declaration that page three zero eight and zero nine simply doesn't mention a hospitalization at all and your view is that  a declaration as compared to testimony count form a sufficient basis for an adverse credibility finding that's also consistent with this court's holding and results so one one finding would be sufficient but there is also here case a situation where there embellishment with regard to possession or statement that he would be locked up for the rest of his life there's inconsistency with with regard to again why the that could be sort of expose very materially such house to be ignored in the credibility assessment if it goes in any way to whether corroboration can be provided or why corroboration of not provided so it simply does not make sense for the immigration judge to be required and the court case law does not require the immigration judge to entirely divorce the credibility assessment from the corroboration particularly in this sort of case if you're not credible in this case the findings are not credible to the extent that again respectfully it's not simply the lack of corroboration but it's also the multiple and conflicting explanations for that lack so if you is willing to lie as to why he refused to corroborate or why he could not corroborate it then that goes directly to credit due to credibility and not just  look and satisfies the trier of fact that the testimony is credible but the trier of fact does decides that that credible testimony does not meet the burden of proof and that this court has decided in aden that that is in fact a possibility and a permissible set of facts even when that happens the applicant should provide evidence that corroborates otherwise credible testimony so grand exists in the universe of eleven fifty eight b one b two where the testimony is otherwise credible the  that would be the advance notice or the opportunity to explain its absence so it's advance notice is not required as long as the opportunity to explain is provided and here the immigration judge did satisfy those did satisfy those requirements but in fact the immigration judge did not even have to do that because the testimony was not otherwise credible so essentially the immigration judge was covering every single possible base in the case where that was not actually as long as the testimony is not credible we don't exist sort of in the universe to render all these procedures have to be followed and that was that was even the case before underling but only when the court made it explicitly clear that yes this is what ren requires and so that is sort of the most recent case law that directly governs right but we still get back to the question and i think you want to make sure you can do your best answer to it we still have to find the james credibility determination supported by substantial evidence and take your position there's substantial evidence that supports it is the inconsistency between his application and his testimony about his mother's that there's also the inconsistency and embellishment regarding what would happen to him if he may be an exaggeration but does that make him less than credible i think it is probably fair to characterize it as an embellishment or or an exaggeration and i do believe that's actually what the immigration judge said but again those things can go to the credibility analysis as one of the relevant factors under the statute ok got you have got that you've got the broken nose and the i could go back for the rest of my life what other substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility not say more say that i'm just asking for the the inconsistency regarding why the church documents were untimely that's the immigration judge's decision page seventy eight seventy nine in the testimony is that one thirty five to thirty six the inconsistency regarding why there were no documents even so even so much of the letter from his mother no less the hospital documents that the seventy six and seventy seven of the immigration judge you know i don't want we getting back into the lack of cooperation as a basis for finding a lack of credibility when it comes to the inconsistent explanations those are not simply the the lack of corroboration it's not simply that the idea is saying well the only problem here is that you did not provide the said this statement as to his ability and i'm direct he only mentioned that his arm was broken it only came out and that's on page fourteen page one fifty four of the record line fourteen and he goes in on cross one only comes out on cross when the questions asked was how long did your mom spend in the hospital that's on page one sixty seven sir on the bottom it was how long was your mom hospitalized line twenty two and twenty three and then he goes on to one sixty sixty eight and then that's when it goes into more or less a month so are we going to hold someone responsible for something they didn't address in their in their actual declaration that comes out on distance see as opposed to they were consistent with the direct on direct exam with their statement and then if not not give them the opportunity at least try to cooperate it is that what we're saying and then  moreover if you want to say embellishing is that the harm is if you went back to his home country let's look at that why would they tell his parents that to tell him that because they want him to come back and turn himself in to confess and if he doesn't and they catch him and they arrest him they're going to lock him up for life what would get the person back more scaring the parents to get their child back and just tom dulwich all right when he comes back we'll just put them on the vision they're going to throw any threats out there to scare him come back that makes it more credible and then he's afraid to send things to his parents because i mean from his parents to hear from his one going to find out that he's a fugitive and because it's a fugitive they may actually be harmed is all is corroborated and his testimony and through his declaration so if somebody asked something on cross then they should be given and it comes out the time frame and the judge wants it cooperated and he should be given the opportunity to lease prove it and then once the judge said hey try this way try that way private courier and the person coming from china a friend that maybe going back them can go pick it up then he was like you know what your honor if you give me the opportunity i'll do that so there really isn't you could not think so there is compelling enough argument here that the that you can't just say because of the reasons why he doesn't have it which were credible actually to the country that they checked them out and that he didn't just know of any other way to get the documents but if given an opportunity after the judge resolved that those issues that would be proper notice and that's the real case in your advanced notice so if those issues are raised he should be least given an opportunity to get those documents and the same thing with the church witness who can cross cooperate if they held onto it on so we do i feel there is enough compelling evidence to back down for further fact finding thank you counsel we appreciate very much