act case so any defector inconsistency in the testimony do not have to go to the heart of mr minuses claim but it did have to bear a legitimate nexus to his credibility that could not be based on speculation or conjecture and among other things had to actually be supported by some evidence in the record here to be a adopted five days bases or suppose a basis for adverse credibility determination i think four of them are are clearly nonsensical and speculative or baseless i think the only kind of conceivable way the court could affirm this or  with me there so that i just said that there is for concern she had that demeanor one that he moved his hands so much at an unspecified time during his testimony that they made noises one that he was non responsive rambling answers one that these are all sort of supposedly things that happened on cross examination that didn't happen under act that his speech got faster in his tone in punjabi which is a total language became desperate according to her recollection and that at some point he repeated things and it gave her the impression he had memorized his declaration i think two of these are things that the court can and should under this court's case look back at the transcript to see of the transcript that all of the court has to look back at the transcripts two of them are things that the transcript sort of clearly shows to not be true the there is no instance on cross where he is non responsive or gives long rambling answers i don't think the government identified any in their brief i don't see any going through the transcript that i didn't identify where on the many many pages and the cr as much longer than the direct she didn't identify anything in her decision two weeks after the hearing as to where this happened it seems like she misremembered something about an allegation that the original did just counsel made about him having memorized dates from the declaration that at page two hundred of the record in fact the interpreter explained that he had mis stated the question and thought that he just canceled i asked for all three days  as for all three dates of the three incidents so that leaves the edges assertion that he had moved his hands or changed his his tone of voice in some way that was suggestive of nervousness but i think under this court you are now moving your hands and i think it's i think i actually i mean i think in a trial with a recording that's going to be transcribed it's what everyone is expected to do so in this in this hearing never seen a judge make a comment on a witness's change in demeanor between comment during the middle of cross examination on someone's demeanor two things so in this case at in the record at page two zero one the i j a notes that he's pointing to his left hand when he's pointing nine this case ends up coming out the other way on demeanor but only because the transcript itself actually reflect reflected nonverbal indications that supported the i j is sort of later assertion about demeanor the records show that the person wasn't doing something right so i mean there it was kind of even more have that i did because the transcriber had actually written and kind of in brackets no audible response on several things but there's a point where the i j a also says you know takes an aside and says i just want to note for the record that there is a long pause before he answered and that's happened several times now and so i'm saying i do see that regularly in immigration court it happened  district court did you say or the immigration immigration court yes that's because of our cases but when a judge is required to disturb a man who's lying or not why there's no real test it's like you when you talk to a client you used to see things you feel things that they're there or their eyes are going back and forth or whatever but you make a determination how much you believe them i thought that there  was this record was pretty good that we were getting something anyway ordinarily a judge doesn't make any comments about why they do it at least she has the i j a here had something what we don't  expect perfection out of the truth we expect them to do their job but we don't expect a full rendition of why each reason i saw the person blink or they were looking down or they were looking at their lawyers what what can we expect what kind of a record do we require to determine whether the the judge is correct or not we weren't there the judge was but i think you said yourself under your cases this is an expectation and it doesn't have to be a lot but especially with i'd is going to make it your decision or decision two weeks later after hearing many other cases in the interim i do think that this court cases like you said require this and i think juan is a good example that shows what is enough some indication by the on the record just like an attorney who wants to record for the transcript some non verbal thing that's happening out of you know out of earshot of the recorder will be expected to do the  same so i guess i'll leave it there for demeanor i do want to go to the border interview issue i think i know this court's cases go kind of both ways on whether something like this can be deemed reliable and used depends on the circumstances  i think here there is no basis for the i j a to to disregard or find implausible his super consistent and plausible account of being exhausted when this interview happened and being in a sleep deprived days it's undisputed between the parties that he was detained at in the evening on february thirteenth the interview happened some time before five am five am on the fourteenth he said he was kept in a cold cell overnight which is something the border patrol still does when after ten people and his account is totally consistent from the time of his account of that time period of when he was brought to the border next inside is consistent from the border interview telling the  kept talking to him well it does say he was he was kept in a cold cell and couldn't sleep for that reason and that's something that still goes on and there's a real thing and there is nothing for there is no basis to disregard that because his account is really  consistent from they don't have anything on record as whether it's still going on while we have his record at this one ok but there's no reason to disregard and this one occasion less or something implausible about his account of this period i think i think ours eleven hours later right but if you've ever booked or been familiar with the booking process in any kind of potentially situation and i am very familiar with it but i only use the record in front of me because that's my duty well you know your time is just about up let me ask you about one of the other ridiculous bases for the i just credibility find the inconsistency is with the documents that he himself submitted that didn't strike me as ridiculous it seemed i don't know why he bothered even bringing these documents to introduce can inconsistency that he didn't need to might maybe could address  i could see i could see sort of that there is you know oddities or weaknesses in some of these actions but i don't see how they go to his credibility in terms of the medical letter that refers to his arm there is no basis to district it would have been purely it could only be speculation  disregard that as something that's not the case in punjab and i can't speculate in that way i mean even in english the hand is part of the arm and i know that in the record in his declaration that they are three sixteen in his father's the attorney general what petitioners asking this court to do is require as you are point out a running commentary of demeanor and responsiveness as the aliens testifying let's be blunt if this court required or if the immigration judge had done this in this case what would we be talking about due process how dare an immigration judge interrupt my client during testimony sir why are you fidgeting sir why is your tone changing sir what are you doing this is not what judges do whether in a district court judge or an immigration judge to drill choir that to do that would simply make these proceedings a farce well i think the point is i don't think our cases require that contrary to what counsel has represented i think they do require after the fact for the i j a to say something other than i just found the person's demeanor to be he's telling what is an agency's opinion and memorize story hasn't tourney's telling the little story i'm director in cross examination now is getting challenge about a story well cross was longer well that's because there's a lot of doubts about credibility because we have demeanor responsiveness and discrepancies in documents so the immigration judge says well look direct you're fine cross you start fidgeting you start doing things or tone of voice is changing well that's of the matter is said let the immigration judge act like a fact finder and just record let the immigration judge sit there and look at the alien in assess credibility like your honor pointed out when interning meets with the client you petitioner counsel would like to testify and that's a different matter but what we're dealing with here is the record and with all due respect if we're going to deal with actual records or personal opinions i've never seen a case and i don't know this a court ever has w credibility on credibility the record must compel reversal no reasonable fact finder would have to agree with this determination or put as the court has said it and shrestha the to overturn adverse credibility with the substance of the border interview but here we're going with non responsiveness the department homeland security is trying to the attorneys asking did you have a translator that's it did you have a translator straightforward question now we all know where this is going we all know this is going to i'm going to start asking more questions what's petitions response multiple times i was tired i don't know what's going on did you have an attorney translator i was tired i don't know what's going on did you have a translator when an alien or witness and in person testifying is not answering questions it's a legitimate basis to start questioning the credibility and that's under the statute now we add in demeanor responsiveness now we have the discrepancies in documents well petitioner says well they're not the record straight for our hand two different words well then do the job the slang it's it's different except the document was in english it's pure speculation so then we have concerns about the other documents the work or party on the letter y is a letter had changed well it's a it's a small party who knows that's the first all that's not in the record tradition never said well my party's a small part of this party well they must change letterheads that's on the record that again is attorney argument which is not evidence and then we have the voter registration which has them as a younger woman well this is a difficulty is the government did not submit that evidence the government didn't say you must submit this evidence and he took this evidence and said here you you go fact finder take a look at this evidence because it supports my claim now what you want to say now is oh excuse me can i take this evidence back no essentially it's saying  i publish a documentary jury and say oh i'd like the jury take a look at this and then you know you start looking at it and say with the witness you say oh you know there's been some discrepancies here you know what can i  petitioner submitted these documents never gave an explanation into a long process starts being problems with responsiveness and excuse me and demeanor so what we have here is the totality of circumstances we look at them we don't parse them out one by one in even if we did petitioners actually conceded now the demeanor is sufficient and sink our supports that so looking at the totality of the circumstances the record simply and even from his account at its shows that it wasn't non responsive he did speak and like counsel said it's clear what where the government attorney was getting at and so the question was not give a translator but did you understand the questions and so he not saying that an i j should sort of interrupt and say stop fidgeting or why are you fidgeting i'm saying something as occurred in one where that i just said i'm just noting for the record that this happened i know for the record that he's moving his hands you know several inches and his and his bracelet is jangling and something like that and i think i think one supports that as for the letter had and the voter roll regardless of why those things might have