taxes are all wrong but i do not collect any money before until september when i became a member of the government reads that as me i became a member in september we read that as meaning i didn't collect money until september by which time i was a member of the federation in our view we think is reinforced by page one eighty of the records lines twenty three and twenty four we started again after being a member i used to collect funds for the federation the destruction are questions just  a dramatic statement or is it all flat as a general rule it's flat and you might have an occasional interpreter that is that is a much better interpreter and is able to  on the interpreter will interpret that sounds and you know sort of breaks up the well as well and so you know that you know you can imagine this person is in the middle of telling a horrifying story about how this person was arrested tortured and he's breaking it up into individual sentences and he's stopping after each was never given an opportunity to explain this is a case in point the other one relates to his second arrest and how his shoulder was put back in place he testified this is on page one twenty three of the record two persons help me from the side they made me stand next to the wall and the judge found an inconsistency with a declaration that he had some minutes despite all my office which says that the police restart my shoulder by slamming me against the wall you know forcing me to stand on the one hand next to the wall and slamming against a wall again no no one a and in france against the government and in favor of him i mean lest he offers anywhere on the record an explanation later on i'm a little bit confused about how to judge that test and i don't belong of our circuit is  that if the op can isn't given an opportunity to explain an alleged discrepancy it just can't be used against him and i can see how there might be an exception to that rule if it's a glaring inconsistency that can't be overlooked but here we're dealing with three separate declarations you know he's trying to recollect things that occurred you know nine years before and he realized he made a mistake and quickly corrected it it's not the basis of an adverse credibility finding the next one relates to his applying for asylum most of it is like i say it's just a form rather that they present to anybody who asked for such a letter and it says this is to certify that the following person or persons is there are a member of this congregation has been coming to the gregoire on a continuous basis and then they write in his name so and end quote he's asked the question were you a member of the fremont gurdwara and he said i'm not a member but i go there how often do you go there i go on the weekend if i'm home on the weekends i go there so how often how many weekends a month you go every week and i go i get so he's saying i go every weekend but he's saying i'm not really a member and then this comes up again later this is some page one fifty six of the administrative record where he's confronted with punished for saying he goes to court every weekend but saying he's not a member because in his view in order to be a member you have to be part of the executive committee and i just brought in my remains i want to go back to something that just resigned because i think there's a very important point a way there's some language and language as well you have to hold that verse credibility fight and i think that's absolutely wrong i think the second circuit's approach is is the correct one and that is where you have a situation like this where you know you throw out five of these six verse credibility logical and like for example saying that he should be found not credible because he first said he was arrested in may and then he quickly corrected and said february almost can't be used against him under the law of the circuit because he's never been given an opportunity to explain but the bottom line is if the judge says these i got six reasons to say you're not credible and five those are based on either legal or factual error and the sixth one well there's some support for we don't know what the immigration judge would do on rina and if she realized that five  and i don't think it's appropriate for this court than to say well because she made an average credibility finding overall we should just hold that in my view what that does is it takes the discretion away from the immigration judge because for all we know when this goes back to the judge she's going to look at it differently in view of the fact that she realizes now that she made five errors and she could come to an altogether different decision if you're a little over your time will give you a little time for rebuttal thank you hear from the government at this time tony general nichols thank your honor mr nichols on behalf of the respondent i want to start with perhaps the last question in the case just because i think we're now on common ground and that is the petitioner has dropped what i think was the suggestion in this brief that this court can actually determine that the parties are in agreement that the appropriate course if you were to disagree with the i j a and forwards credibility determination to remain and however i have course i don't agree that that's the appropriate course i think it's important to start here with the fact that this court has opinion at sixteen to seventeen administrative record each today three quote on cross examination the respondents testimony was non responsive and evasive he repeated testified about matters unrelated to the questions and often didn't questions of mr pathak and expresses concern to mr tars avoiding the question or not even answering it a second example is administrative record one sixty nine same thing and then another example understanding that when the i g says that she's had no opportunity to review the transcript she was there a course for the hearing that this is not united states district court where there may be real time transcription where somebody can bring that exact estimate and you know what what happens when there's a generalized statement and then we go to the actual transcript and it doesn't support it well i think that might be a problem in a hypothetical situation i don't think it's true here because i think if you go look at the transcript cites i gave you it's quite clear that petitioner was in fact not answering the questions was in fact non responsive but it's not clear to me that the i g has to actually review the transcript later on  circumstances but i js don't have the opportunity to go back and review the transcript perhaps they should but they don't yet and what i'm disagreeing with is at least in the most extreme at least with respect to something t assume this is a hypothetical question if the i g makes a statement like that the witness was responsive in these respects and then we go back with the benefit of the actual transcript and it doesn't support the i j a statement what do we do well i think first of all your standard review would be your typical whine and that is good no reasonable person have found what the i j a found and but you have to grant particular deference i think because you don't just have the closed record in front of you have to assume that the witnessing of the of the witnesses demeanor is relevant in the person testifying may have been non responsive or responsive in what he or she said but how here she said it matters to  is but but one which with respect to fact evidence makes pretty clear i think that you have to determine that no reasonable person could have decided the way the i g did i think with respect to factual determinations like whether with respect to a particular line of questioning the petitioner was responsible or not and this is substantial evidence standard is a general one but i think the court has been very clear saying that with respect to particular questions the question is whether any reasonable person would have been compelled to have reached a conclusion different from the i j a so i don't think and in particular in this case i do not think it can be claimed that the i j a was wrong at least applying that standard review to concluded particularly where the idea was there in person that the petitioner was non responsive an invasive let's take a particular example or one of the things the i j a relied upon here if i'm not mistaken was  district secretary or merely a member yeah can you show me in the in the petition or is testimony where there's an inconsistency on this particular issue well i think we're shifting kinds of evidence first you have a letter from this foundation a letter says that you have been elevated to the post a propaganda secretary of the district unit and have taken end quote active role in our struggle then the petition that administrative record one fifty four to one fifty five and then again later at one ninety four ninety five sort of shifts around there's a suggestion that he wasn't ever a propaganda secretary any level then there's a suggestion that yes in fact he was at the district level but he reserved it where he essentially only worked at the village level and then there was the suggestion that he was only the propaganda secretary at the village level so if you really want to lie he would agree does say that in some respects though his wife's name contradicts his wife's does administrative record to nineteen to her knowledge he never had any position in the federation other than as a member so if you credit the wife in any respect or at the very least you have a disagreement between the wife and the husband about what the husband was up to now you're basically not watching him that's the case but i don't think that you could reverse the i just determination of credibility by substituting that judgement or saying that while it's probably the case that the wife lack knowledge and then back to the question i asked first is there an inconsistency yeah if excuse me let me think is there an inconsistency in the petitioner's testimony on this issue whether it was just a petitioner was elevated to the post of propaganda secretary of the district unit were you the propaganda secretary of the district unit i did they were saying so but i did not leave my village because i had a block at seventeen i was not the secretary i would only work at the village level now that's what he said throughout well he said he was the secretary of the district level but he wouldn't think of calling this a functional manner he wasn't doing it well i mean that's one interpretation of the record that's and that's one inconsistency imagine that you rejected that as an infant system we still have a number of others i don't think that this eliminating this one consistency would be something like well i can't really answer your question because i don't know the answer but he didn't say that the first time he said the hospital records it was yeah one twenty that particular passage to me it seemed obvious that there was a miscommunication because there's exactly what he was doing she was really kept abreast and you write what's interesting about this case is that the immigration just didn't make any adverse credibility finding with respect to the wife and i'm not sure how that enters into the case because she cooperated much of what he said about him because job he just never did it he wanted to stay home and tend to the farm and in so far as their records might the federation letter might have an inaccuracy in it i think it's important to look at page two seventy two of the record this is the document that the government itself presented based on the investigation