good morning may please the court my name is george to reduce appearing on behalf of petitioner gauthier saying this is the streamlined case where the board affirmed without opinion the decision of the immigration judge to deny petition was arrested i believe on september twenty first ninety five and but did not mention that he had been arrested along with his father in law which was brought out during cross examination fisher said  right there either trivial and nature or oid there are collateral to the claim it's not go to the heart of the claim why we do this why don't we understand your argument in that regard why don't we hear from the government they can explain to us why the government the attorney general believes these inconsistency go to the core and then you can respond in rebuttal in any way you wish because you have plenty of time that's fine with me and i thank you thanks for coming and that will hear from the attorney general of this time here reduce his political activities or anything like that but the court this claim is false from the front end and back at the june twenty eighth two thousand arrest when the fine and i say that because his testimony is that he was an organizer not  just someone who showed up that day but an organizer of the rally or sit in or it's not clear exactly what it was giving up the event and fair enough so as an organizer of the event it's fair to expect him to city in a record about whether possession or was in hiding at that point but even if and i'd like to get to that along with certain other more discreet discrepancies but even if you assume that the petitioner adequately explained the discrepancy about when he was in hiding you still have the petitioners failure to provide anything approaching a complete coherent persuasive account of what happened in connection with the june twentieth event and not only is it fair to expect him to do so given that he was according to him an organizer of the event so therefore something that would be important to him but from the back end as well because his account is that's what drove him over the edge convinced him he had to flee india and drove him into hiding according to his  at it whether there was planning for intervention got arrested because this planning for it became known whether there was an event and he was arrested later and retaliation for it if there was an event where it was what it was why it was held you just can't tell any of that from the record so the immigration judge quite properly said this is the core of just your claim if this claim is true and yet he can't tell me anything about what happened or why or what his involvement was and there also ar was wrong about because you can't tell what he's saying at one point he says that the event in august of two thousand was or that event that was being planned and that was in relation to the death of thirty six other his testimony suggest that the event was going to be a march from the punjab to john in kashmir part of the testimony suggest that it was going to be split it but it's not clear where part of the testimony suggests that it was an event closer to home in punjab and i just i don't know from the record what event this story is to say which part of it was was right which part of it is inconsistent with what with which other part so which which brings me to the fundamental point given the standard of review there are cases as i said where there cases that where the immigration judge who is the fact finder doesn't know what to believe because the only has the burden of proof if the immigration judge doesn't know what to believe that means that the only loses and so it's not just the case that where the record conclusively demonstrates that the alien is incredible that the only and under this court's standard of review but it's also the case that where the immigration judge doesn't know what the real facts are what the well truth his burden of presenting a coherent persuasive case was not something that could fairly be held against the petitioner that's not true here in this case this court reads the transcript the court will see that the immigration judge was patient was open minded the district testified to great length unlike in a lot of cases the immigration judge did not ask very many questions and when he did ask questions it was not in a hostile tone and often as not it was designed to try to help the petitioner when the petitioner testified perhaps inadvertently who knows that he had been arrested because he was making propaganda against callus down immigration judge stopped went back to that instead you just testified that you were arrested for making propaganda against cal stat but and gave the position an opportunity to correct that so that the point is this is thank you your honor let's start with the advance i think it is the event or events of june twenty eighth two thousand counsel for the attorney general i think accurately says your client i was being held in general kashmir as opposed to anywhere else in india i think he was trying to tie in the fact that this was nothing happened and he got the date wrong  and and that's one of the record i believe but i don't believe that he characterized district testimony completely in a completely accurate fashion and i think i think the petitioner tried his best to testify about what exactly happened he was the one that independently tried to clarify his testimony if he simply said nothing on i believe that's i think he stopped him so somewhere between page ninety and one hundred to clarify his testimony you know he had been confronted order of things that occurred at the of the the reason for having the event what he was doing or not doing immediately preceding the event whether he was in hiding at the time of and other other aspects of the central to those to those arrests i think that that it is unfair for the immigration judge to find that he was not credible in this case i think that all the in all the concerns of the immigration