sikh in india who claimed persecution on account of his political opinion by oppositional parties and the police who arrested him three times the immigration court following remount once again found him incredible and that decision with the firm by the board the petitioner contends that the board erred in affirming the i g s incredibility finding because the basis for the finding was not material and did not affect or impugn his well founded fear of persecution  know under the real id be demeanor of the witness is one of the characteristics that the idea can take into account and evaluating the credibility and in this case fall under the real i d act to sustain the idea is non credibility determination the real idea does permit the judge to make an ad for its credibility finding  that i don't you miss something i miss something with you is refining by the bor that he did not not consider these good until the findings as he looked at him and made  a nation is something else was on his mind is i don't know why you made that skip then all of a sudden you left junction this question which i was getting your answer and went to something else that i didn't understand statements and his written declaration he pointed to risk to the petitioners prior testimony before the asylum office and he found fault with the petitioners omission of problems his brother paul winter however as the judge relied on that as part of his determination of credibility he also found an inconsistency between two a colleague's omani letter in that an sure in the deficiencies was in itself a decision and instead made a blanket negative demeanor finding so on that basis substantial evidence doesn't support the adverse credibility if there determine a i get your point about the documents or the about the brother but with respect to the demeanor evidence what is it you're referring to that contradicts that finding your honor i will use your own explanation which i don't disagree with regarding what would constitute a demeanor finding regarding her it sounds facial expression or hesitancy or  other verbal cues but the judge did not refer to any of those items he made no mention of changes and the  response to the quote is a quote self contradictory self contradictory has nothing to do with one outer appearance or official expressions that constitute to mean or so mean please the court ira care on behalf of respondent acting attorney general rosa if we think this case comes exactly down to judge smith's question there's a credibility determination based on demeanor based on a vase responsive list and self contradictory testimony not just inconsistent with his brother or his wife itself contradictory his own testimony based on demeanor or the i j a observed in the room and that is more than sufficient for this court to affirm on that ground alone we would add that there is nothing in the opening brief from petitioner that even raises demeanor self contradictory evasiveness and non responsive miss and so that's part of the reason our brief on the other side when he's talking about his brother and when he knew this these allegations that his brother was arrested and beaten at one point he says they didn't really tell me much cited know until he came here in july two thousand and nine another time he says they told me a little bit and i figured out i understood from that that he was being arrested same as me but i didn't know why another time he acknowledges that he understood that his brother was being arrested because of him he says specifically my brother never got arrested before i left town he was allowed to go to and from work without problems so his story on that changes internally as does a story on why he didn't tell the asylum officer in march of two thousand and nine at one point he says i didn't know yet another point  this didn't happen yet another point he says the asylum officer didn't ask another point he says when the asylum officer asked about family i didn't think that included my brother because he doesn't live with me and so his answers on those things are all over the map substantively but even when you look at the way he responds when his answers become self contradictory they're less direct they're much more evasive it takes several questions to get an answer out of him and some of these instances you can see i j has to jump in and try to help put a finer point on it because of the way the answers are coming in and we would submit that that reflects what the i j a was seeing in the room and demonstrates that there was a demeanor that show that we're not selling truth that there could be cultural bias there could be there could be translation issues and you know any trial lawyer knows that you can prepare your client for direct by going over the questions and answers with them beforehand but cross is a different matter so it does rise me that he would be orse well and immediately responsive to his own counsel's questions but sometimes have difficulty with cross examination what about but i think and i think that's true in general but the examples we have here show why this determination is reliable and should be affirmed and it's supported by substantial evidence which give you one example i one point across he's asked why is your dad's name spelled in two different ways in written statements signed by your dad and he gives these evasive answers and he ultimately says well my dad had an accent and he forgets things and then he comes back later on redirect and says actually my dad was named two different ways that's not the kind of thing that is but is that demeanor or is that was part of what the judge to i j said was a basis for his demeanor finding was self contradictory testimony and i think the two go hand in hand we don't know what is facebook like when he was saying these things about his dad forgetting and how he struggled initially with two different spellings of his dad's name but it's the same thing on much more material issues like when he learned that his brother was being abused or allegedly arrested and beaten when he whether his wife was in the room when police came in and allegedly verbal abuse them in between his arrests and prod underactive my wife was there every time she was verbal abuse she says it expressly on cross and or after she testifies or if she sequestered and she comes in and testifies that she she doesn't say anything about being personally verbal abuse she says there were no problems she talked about him being verbally abused and he comes in later and gives this evasive answer about well she wasn't necessarily in the room she has a lot of housework and so these kinds of answers that we have here i think we think give the court more than enough basis official evidence  the demeanor finding you know there is a risk in general and demeanor findings but the i j a here explain their bases and there's more than enough in the record to support them you know what about the ability to relocate within the country into three buckets the ones that try to retell the story as the b i and i j said one is the national president of the party who mentions petitioner but it doesn't say anything that is in the party does say anything about his story nothing about arrests nothing about protests nothing about beatings none of that stuff is in there there's other people's arrests there's concerns about nuclear war but nothing about petitioner in his story there's a district president who talks about three arrests and helping him get out and there are the red flags about the date and the lack of reference number but beyond that it doesn't the i j m b i didn't limit it to the date and lack of reference number they talk specifically about the fact that it doesn't give the circumstances of the arrests and it doesn't say anything about beatings and your local district president who gave you two versions of the letter the st one was submitted the day of a hearing without a date and a reference number again red flags mr credibility but that person should know if you were arrested at a protest for the party it's odd that that wouldn't be in the letter they went out and got to fill that gap in their story on the morning of the nd hearing and so that the b i and i j were correct to say that can't be enough to rehabilitate all that inconsistency  and they want able to be cross examined and that is something that this court has said is a legitimate thing to do and this case shows why because you have the people who came in the petition on his brother they submit a written statement before the  st hearing and then when they were cross examined that's where the contradictions evasive in this and the demeanor show that they lacked credibility so if the people who were present who told the story lacked credibility there's no reason for the i j a to overturn lacks credibility the government has then explained how the writer of the circle ladder than the circle president himself have been made available for cross examination  that's what the government's relying upon but the burden in this case as you know is on your show that his evidence compels a different finding is not correct it's correct