matter a seven month delay was found reasonable under the circumstances in the present matter was filed eight months after their status expired or four and a half months since their last attempt at an extension was withdrawn so the four and a half months is less than the seven months in taslima case so hopefully the court will see that this is a reasonable time period if the court does see that issue there's also a significant credibility issue most of the scrabble just just because you get to file it doesn't mean you win right there you still have to get over the adverse credibility right correct record credibility the b s a kind of looks like they limited it to three or four main instances that they relied on but one of them was explained by the petition that there really is no discrepancy to speak of well ok there are several that are listed right and you're pretty real i do cracked correct so we're looking at the real id standard and so there are th what they need one consistency that goes to the heart correct correct correct your honor previous it's a different standard and i will also note this one of the main discrepancies that was perceived was how long the lead petitioner stayed in the hospital and it was four days for seven days i went through the transcript petitioner actually testified one week on several occasions and he says the five four days on a different occasion so the one week actually matches the medical records so if you look at the page numbers page two thirty seven and two thirty nine he mentions one week stay in the hospital page one he mentions four days but the court's really latched onto the discrepancy between the four and the seven meanwhile he did testify seven days on a couple other occasions so it looks like a little confusion but the point being i don't think this this alone is enough to support an adverse credibility finding another worst ok so also one other key point is the interpreter had a problem interpret the medical certificate lie in the court  and that was pages three fifteen and three eighteen of the record he says he's unable to interpret one of the terms the medical terms and the court relies on this is a discrepancy his testimony versed a medical certificate and i believe because of this inability to translate of the interpreter the court should you raise tension translation as an issue on a speeches right right so there would be material agree with you there but a failure to remember or explain i don't think is grounds for an adverse credibility find maybe it's grounds for insufficien of why he would you know why he was you know why he was targeted and why he would continue to be targeted i'm telling you have to know what some of those things are about yeah but i would agree that i mean it's like i'm saying i'm a communist but then you ask me what's a communist and i said well i don't know what that would back you very much confidence in the fact that i was a communist you know you're right i agree with you one hundred percent that that wouldn't give me confidence but i think in the presence of an official interpreter and when he testified his notes were there for all the city he had the notes in front of them they were explained that every district in armenia has a central headquarters central headquarters and his written statement that the central headquarters same to me that that's trivial and doesn't relate to his fear of persecution so that goes to the heart of this is silently real really reveal going to fabricate an asylum application as they need to make themselves look like a likely target so you didn't just go to the speech you gave the speech but you can't remember it you didn't just support the merchants youth agenda you actually went out to universities and spoke to people about it but you can't remember anything about the youth agenda you weren't just at a polling station you were at the merchant's central headquarters and in the statement he says this is where all of the calls came in from from around the country the other the other polling places that's what the central headquarters was you know in his testimony he said i was at a bovey and and he attempted to correct that by saying every district has a central headquarters but the calls don't all come in to all the district headquarters they come in through the year of an office so that explanation simply didn't work the notes that he was looking at he said these are my notes it was actually his written statement in armenian so it wasn't just notes he had his statement in front of him in armenian while he was questioned about he says he was hospitalized sometimes for four days sometimes for a week and on page two thirty seven he says more than a week the certificate that he produced one of the few things he produced to corroborate his story there was a certificate of hospitalization he claims it was given to him when he was discharged  the hearings began in zero seven and then the two key ones where about eight months apart in two thousand and ten the i j a stopped the first one because he had reported it when he was being cross examined for a while and  things weren't going well he said i was in an accident recently and so the i j a said well if you think that's affecting your memory we will adjourn the hearing and they reconvened six months later in september of two thousand and ten after well well i don't we don't know where he got it your honor i'm sorry we don't know where he got it but he claims he got it on distant pond discharge in one nine hundred ninety eight that doesn't make much sense given the date on  other thing that doesn't make sense about it is the inconsistency that the that the court was focusing on is he said he got a certificate when he got out of the hospital yes right and that was in the ninety's and the stand he honor i can't answer that but that makes sense to me now the other problem with it is that he testified that he had bruises from this beating lots of bruises and he even said he used lotion to treat it the document itself sa multiple fractures and there's no lotion known to man that will deal with multiple fractures and one of the other of those things is not true that this is really a clear cut case on credibility of more than one heart of the claim discrepancies and since the line drawing is done by the agency we submit respectfully that the court has to defer to that line drawing here because there is substantial presumptively unreasonable but we'll deal with it on a case by case basis they didn't blast everything under six months but i think that the case law has looked favorably upon shorter than six months and unfavorably upon longer now this is a case that it's not really easy to classify whether it's more or less than six months cases that well it becomes easy if you look at the regulation of the regulation doesn't say applied for status it says maintain status so in the list of exceptions somebody who has maintained status does not have to file for asylum until i  yes your honor in spite of his efforts at that point he needs to be doing two things at once not waiting you need to be working up his asylum application and waiting for the decision on his visa extension so you don't mean if i was in his shoes i would hope it was that way because i'd rather not have to work on something and maybe not need it but on the other hand you can see how this opens the door for abuse if all you have to do is keep filing applications you know and not ever bring your day in court on the asylum claim you can make that lasts a long time and then there's no support for that in the regulation or in agency decisions and so again we think that the court should defer here and i would point out on the taslima case that's not a clear seven month case because what the court found unlike here here we have a clear start of the clock it's the day his visa expired and he's no longer maintaining status that taslima case is a change conditions case there was a religious conversion involved and the government argued that the clock started on the ceremony the date of the ceremony of the conversion and the court said well if you look at the records she said she needed some time to figure out if this was the right path for her and so the conversion is not an instantaneous thing that people really go through a process and so in the test lamie case there were seven months from that ceremony until the asylum happened application was filed but what the court is really saying is the obligation to go for the asylum application really didn't start until some time later unspecified date and under the circumstances that date the agency should have deemed reasonable we don't have that here  certain what we said in our brief on that so i would say if i say anything inconsistent with our brief the brief is correct i think it is it's a judgment call and i know we have argued in the or i believe we've argued in the past that it was this is a standard less thing but i think the court has disagreed and said we can review this that there are standards because the regulation the preamble talks about  would also suggest and i thought of this when you were talking to opposing counsel i'm not sure the court needs to reach the one year issue because if you uphold the credibility determination what would be the point of  asylum claim asylum in withholding our coextensive the only difference is the burden that is on the individual and since somebody has found incredible can't meet either burden well but if it was far if it was barred by the one year then that ends it right but does and all right but then if we didn't part by the one year then we have to look at the asylum and what do you all mean and the cat but asylum determines that and if if any one of the reasons substantial evidence it goes to the heart of the claim then the standard of review requires us to affirm or deny your honor yeah that's your argument that's our argument ok if you read the country reports i've read the ones in the record i think go up to about two thousand and nine or i have one here now nineteen ninety eight and  what page would you be on your  and you go down paragraph starts with the words the constitution constitution provides for broad human rights protections but human rights problems persist in several important areas substantial intervention by local power structures in the march presidential election continue to restrict citizens ability to change their government peacefully members of the security forces your conviction the problem is the burden especially when you're coming from a country that has this kind of these kinds of difficulties is that the applicant has to show that they're going to be singled out for persecution not that the country  itself not a perfect or ideal place to reside in this case going to the very first thing you read that the ministry of internal affairs and national security is responsible for domestic security there's even a problem as to this because at one time the petitioner says he was taken to a police station and another account of that same incident he says he was taken to internal affairs so we don't know what to believe we don't know how he fits into this we just know that he's made an effort to boost his profile up to where he would more likely be someone that his opponents would recognize and be interested in but we submit that he doesn't succeed at that because twenty fifteen countries report and the petitioner did testify that things have not changed so when we read earlier from the one nine hundred ninety eight country report at least his view is that whatever the latest country report as of the one prior to his hearing at least report if the later ones for example two thousand and ten still refer to problems which they do that's consistent with what we've heard at the hearing one thing i noticed i heard is about the one year issue the standard is the totality of the circumstances so therefore the fact petitioner filed an extension of his h one b visa it's a factor it doesn't mean conclusively that it's an ex you know he's told the time for that time period but it is a factor and it's important to know petitioner was on a three year h one b visa at the time he filed his extension requests for another three now that he's not here today they'd be extension requests with withdrawn by his prior employer so petitioner is not aware was not aware of that at the time the extension was placed so therefore he has less incentive to file for the asylum at that point in time because he's probably under the belief that most likely his extension is going to be granted it's already been in effect for three years and he's been working for the company therefore i think under the totality of circumstances it's a strong factor as to why he didn't file the application for asylum until he did also i will would like to note the medical certificate did match his testimony on the issue of brain concussions and that's what responded testified was a significant injury that he remembered being treated for in the hospital at that time so the document does match his testimony on that issue there was a discrepancy on bruises versus fractures and also he did testify that he got the certificate when he left the hospital and the date is five years later right yeah there is a discrepancy