he filed for asylum on that basis of political persecution and he was denied asylum by the immigration judge after in full and individual hearing he appealed to  appeals he was granted every man and in order for the judge to consider the substance of the documentation that could rehabilitate his credibility and they said the judge had vague demeanor findings and speculative exaggeration  down minor inconsistency is in the records which reveal nothing about on the final map the chems fear for his safety or not and not a good basis for an adverse credibility finding whether just for the damage to ransacked burned down and then he in his declaration he said he ran into fours how do you explain all that in his testimony he explained to the immigration judge that he was fleeing from his  guard on that other points and there could be some mistranslations perhaps but that's almost the same thing you know whether running into a garden or a forest are both like planted areas  as those weigh those things and whether or not they're close enough that maybe they're consistent or they're not close enough and they're inconsistent you know i feel that maybe i was i'd feel th problem with his analysis if you say house garden followers three different things using different words regardless of the language sumi then the judges got to decide whether or not translator not that we are aware of translators can you know say like i don't think it was a slip it's anything on the record to all we have when you get up here is a record so did you try to get him to clarify that actually the translator that's making this difference between forest and home did you make any attempts to clarify any of these inconsistency he testified during the hearing that  from his attackers did you question your client before the immigration judge i have yes i did so did you talk to him about these issues i cannot recall but i believe that maybe i suppose his testimony was regarding that was possible at the time it's his bird and so it's not whether it's plausible you know you're dealing with the fact finder he's making factual findings right now but there was no way to tell that and you know whether immigration judge would not believe thought that they were minor inconsistencies maybe it was worth clarifying with him what it is he actually intended and perhaps in hindsight same exact details using the very same exact language as he had during the previous hearings and and his affidavit you know that's always difficult to do and especially since the second and people and to these are you guys are calling traumatic painful events that most people try to block out from their memory because it's so painful to recall and so the judge as a good party he can still convince others to join as long as they trust his word others he has convinced to join may not have as much education either especially in the few comes from an area with low literacy levels  general statements but did not provide detail consistent with his claims respondents claims just because it's from friends of friends and family doesn't mean that they should be accorded limited weight they may have an interest however for example as an analogy if someone was gunned down in his own home and only evidence and key witnesses were from his own family members should family members testimony be discounted the answer is of course not i not minimize what happened you know whether they have an interest or not there's still just wanting us to what happened and the easiest to people i get testimony from the times are the only ones willing to go out of their way and spend their own time to testify and who are those people to be friends and family more like they don't others responsibility to travel to and from india and to travel out of there by with official documentation  despite being able to leave a country is actually and maybe indicative of the country's government not minding the person leaving at all especially that person is opposing the government and they deem him to be a threat if you glad for and leave the country appearing on behalf of the attorney general the court should deny the petition for view because the agency's denial of asylum and withholding on adverse credibility grounds is supported by substantial evidence the agency offered specific cogent reasons for finding that mr tofu testified incredibly i'd first like to address that issue as contention today that it was improper for the immigration judge to consider further testimony on remained on the board question for my review of the records some of the thousand and nine it seems to me pretty clear that was probably a typo but if just bear with me we're saying if we should conclude that there is some of these reasons for the credibility determination were not well founded but that there were some issues that could support an adverse credibility terminations what should we do the coroner and the agency also address credibility concerns in the totality of the circumstances so the court in should consider in the totality of the circumstances whether the agency's finding that petitioner was not credible is supported by substantial evidence the court should only remained to the agency if the court finds that the record compels the conclusion that the petitioner did not testify incredibly so your position is that there are say five reasons that the judge gave for finding the testimony not rely and we review it we think three of those reasons are in error but two of them are valid then we have to look at the two valid ones and see if that amounts to substantial evidence or do we weigh the whole all of the say well or is there enough here to say needs to go back or correction of the three items that we think are in there well the court would have to look at each of the rationales offered by the agency and then determine if those rationales the one determine if the rationales cited support the finding that the petitioner testified incredibly if the court finds that several of those rationales are appropriate to find the petitioner testified incredibly the court said up hold the credibility finding as supported by substantial evidence well that's a good general exposition but the court would if the court found that the rationales cited by the i j a that the court finds do support an adverse credibility finding in this case considering the  circumstances the court could deny the petition for view finding that the agency's decision had adequately found the petitioner not credible i think that's a restatement of your first answer and what i'd like you to tell me is what we are to do on the state of the hypothetical the judge oh i think it was a majority of the reasons slim majority but the majority of the reasons offered by the  find were inadequate but there are some reasons that he offered the were for finding no credibility i think that the court could issue a decision saying we can do anything so that i could doesn't help me much the court should issue a decision saying that even discounting these reasons relying only upon the reasons cited by the immigration judge that the court finds support an adverse credibility finding the court finds that there is substantial evidence to uphold the immigration judges adverse credibility finding and circuit law supporting that view i don't believe that this court has law i would be happy to provide supplemental briefing on that issue regarding whether you know decisions where the court  instances cited by the i j a and the b a a for adverse for an adverse credibility termination are supportive of that determination and some are not i think that in this case it's not necessary to address that issue because each of the rationales offered by the agency for the adverse credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence considering each of them in turn and the court mentioned some of them as petitioners how about talking about the ones think there's more of an inconsistency there maybe than the agency's decisions are clearly out but if you look at the doctor's letter which is on page one fifty nine of the administrative record not only is it dated may twentieth but it says i treated mr tofu when he presented with severe injuries on may twentieth two thousand and nine mr tobin never testifies that he was injured in two thousand and nine his testimony about a march two thousand and nine attack actually indicates in multiple incidences that he escaped his attackers on that occasion mr cho who claims that he was injured in one thousand nine hundred sixty and the doctor's letter is on page one fifty nine of the administrative record and it's the first sentence of the second paragraph where the doctor claims to have treated him when he presented with severe injuries on may twentieth of two thousand and nine fifty nine one fifty nine of the administrative record understand that but doesn't that suggest to you that maybe as as you often do you make a mistake because he knows it's now may twenty of two thousand and nine was writing this letter well i don't know what i'm saying but no i do understand you say well now when you say no he intended that he would be that the he came in on may twenty two thousand i think that in by ok i think well i think that the theory with the letter as submitted by petitioner is that it was made contemporaneously with the treatment th doctor rendered i think that's why it's offered up to share number offers any reason to believe that it was prepared otherwise i think it is contemporaneous with the treatment but well ok well so what i'm saying is there's no testimony in the record to indicate that he was injured in two thousand and one his testimony is that he was injured and cut on his left arm in don't know vem ber of one thousand nine hundred six this and that he went to the village doctor at that time this doctor's letter is consistent with that account a cut on the upper arm that was treated by a village doctor however provides that the treatment was rendered in may of two thousand and nine which is thirteen years after the injury as testified to by mr tofu so the inconsistency there is i understand the inconsistency what isis has suggested to you was that it is the same injury th claims and therefore the doctors describing it from his notes but he inadvertently puts the date on which he writes the letter as the date in which the injury occurred but i understand your position that that is not so that in fact he describes exactly this injury that according to the play of took the petitioner took place a long time ago and he puts another date on it so i understand your position yes and i think it's relevant in that respect that when this evidence was offered if that was indeed the case there should have been an explanation offered for why to be sure the letter was and  tofu has never attempted to offer an explanation even before this court he just claims it's a minor inconsistency even when he's put on notice by both the immigration judge and the board of immigration appeals that they're considering his testimony about the injury he allegedly suffered right i think his statement was not given credit as the other statements because it was by an interested witness and also because it was sort of vague with regard to detail and he is a friend he's a friend of mr tofu so this court has held specifically in the didgeridoo case that letters from family and friends should not be given weight because they are from interested witnesses the case has been cited at least twice i think in published decisions by that court most recently in around two thousand and thirteen so that is a valid basis for the it was not as much weight it was saying no wait they are right i can look it up i thought  so you know where they are i don't know he gave no way to them he did also go on to say that the statements were also vague they didn't provide a lot of details and very general in nature so that's another reason on top of the fact that these are interested witnesses janata for their statements much weight with regard to mr yousef testimony i think that it's  testimony whether he was an actual witness to the attack that he discusses and i think that it's mr yousef that's talking about the two thousand and nine attack  not clear then how he knows that he's a b m p member if mr cho who ever represented that to him himself i think it's in their testimony that they talk about the attacks and as cited by the agency it's not clear whether mr hauck actually saw the one thousand nine hundred sixty track first in his testimony i have it on page five thirty seven of my record he says that he did not see the attack and then later on page five hundred forty four through five hundred forty five of my record he claims that he did see the attack similar to similarly mr yousef appears to admit in his testimony although he discusses i believe the two thousand and nine attack that he did not see the attack he indicates that mr tofu was running from the scene by the time that he arrived so to the extent that their testimony and statements referenced the attack and reference mr  membership in addition to being from interested witnesses and being general in nature they don't come from witnesses who have very clearly actually witnessed what they are discussing so given all those factors the agency was not wrong to afford those documents limited wait i think it's also important when talking about corroborating evidence to note the fact that the agency had already found based on his own testimony and evidence that mr tofu was not credible the agency look to his own testimony certainly did not clear the defects if anything they added to them the agency was not wrong in this case to find that under this court's framework and the framework used by the agency the corroborating documents here did not cure the adverse credibility finding made specifically based on mr tofu monye and supported by substantial eviden e to briefly address petitioners contention that the agency was wrong to consider further testimony on remand the board did the case and the board stated it in addition to stating that there were problems with i juz first credibility finding and that he should consider corroborating documents that the immigration judge should determine the new petitioners eligibility for relief of the board when the board remains a and is for the stated purpose and if not explicitly limited by the board as this remained was not the immigration judges then free on remand to determine any other issues as necessary also in re mand proceedings there were three hearings and each of them the immigration judge talked with petitioners counsel and it was very clear that petitioners counsel intended to offer further testimony the last thing the immigration judge said in that regard it was at the final hearing where he said to petitioners counsel of the avenues are widely open for petitioner to come forward with his claim and to express as he wishes and to express it as he wishes before the immigration court so everyone was on notice that further testimony was expected an anticipated in this case unfortunately the testimony offered served only to bolster some of the inconsistency is already in the record and the immigration judge and the board of immigration appeals relying on all of the testimony in the record was correct to find that the petitioner did not testify credible aims and that an adverse credibility finding which was not his claim not being otherwise additionally what its slogans were at the many meetings he allegedly attended he simply reiterated that the party was good i think that the immigration judge was not wrong to require more detail than that from someone who had been a member of the think that here this is not someone who's saying you know i voted for the b n p because i like them he's saying that he was actually somewhat similar to an activist for the b n p involved with the party for twenty years recruiting people problem with his testimony about the police is that it's also implausible and he testified that the police would not help him because they supported the awami league and that it was because that the police were supportive of the awami league who are his alleged persecutors it the testimony is implausible in that regard because after the alleged attacks on him he was able and he testifies on page four hundred  i'm sorry i see my time is up and if we conclude he testifies that he was able to obtain a passport and visa and that this requires police verification in bangladesh so it's implausible that police who would verify his leaving and coming back to the country with a passport and a visa would also be the same police that were unwilling to support him because they are and if one of the reasons cited even one of the reasons cited by the agency is strong enough that this court finds that it can father circuits have addressed this issue but i think that the the main point on that issue is that the court is doing a totality of the circumstances analysis and if the court can find that the reason cited by that is the court can find that several reasons cited by the agency support an adverse credibility finding and even discounting the other ones there is substantial evidence in the record to support the agency's making of an adverse petitioner's credibility and it was some examples because you only got five minutes so those you know the heart of the case now where where is it that refutes this to me this is your client's chance the and during the hearing the immigration judge you know wanted to use the petitioner to testify and and and he seemed like he would only be satisfied if he heard the judge that he's this one is credible and then as far as the police and he the judge said well he did and i don't believe it because he didn't say